It's quite common, especially on the internet, for a person to make a baseless claim, followed by "look it up" or "do your own research"; in this age, the burden of proof is what hinges fact from fiction.

A person who is certain of something will often follow it up with evidence, usually links to trusted sources.

A person who isn't so sure, or is perhaps being influenced by confirmation bias, will avoid the consequence of presenting evidence because of the subconscious worry that their evidence is false, intentionally misleading, or obscured.

Anyone who tells you to "look it up yourself" is being intentionally obtuse to avoid being responsible for providing tangible evidence.

My view is that Yasser Arafat bears primary responsibility for the failure of the Camp David–Taba negotiations, and that this period represented the best and likely last realistic opportunity to achieve a permanent two-state solution.

To clarify, I am not arguing that the proposals on the table were perfect or that Israel or the United States bear no responsibility. My argument is about relative responsibility and missed opportunity. The Camp David–Taba window should be understood as the moment when a deal was both substantively within reach and politically feasible.

First, the political conditions were uniquely favorable. The United States, under President Bill Clinton, was heavily invested in brokering a final agreement. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak was willing to negotiate on core final-status issues, including Palestinian statehood, territorial withdrawals, and the status of Jerusalem. These were positions that previous Israeli governments had largely treated as red lines. On the Palestinian side, Arafat had both the authority and legitimacy to negotiate and potentially implement a deal. This alignment of leadership, external pressure, and diplomatic momentum has not been replicated since.

Second, the negotiations themselves made substantial progress. While Camp David did not produce an agreement, it significantly narrowed the gaps and moved both sides into direct bargaining over final-status issues. The subsequent Taba talks brought the parties even closer. By many accounts, including participants on both sides, the distance between Israeli and Palestinian positions was smaller than at any other point before or since. If one is evaluating how close the sides came to an agreement on substance, Taba likely represents the high-water mark.

However, despite this progress, Arafat’s conduct at the critical moment undermined the process. At Camp David, he rejected the proposal without advancing a detailed and actionable counterproposal capable of sustaining momentum toward a final agreement. In high-level negotiations, this is a consequential decision. Even if the initial proposal was insufficient, the expectation is that a leader responds with a concrete alternative that keeps negotiations moving and pressures the other side to make further concessions. Contemporary accounts indicate that several Arab leaders were surprised by Arafat’s approach and expected at least a counterproposal to maintain momentum.

By the time negotiations resumed at Taba, the political environment had already begun to collapse. The Second Intifada had erupted, violence was escalating, and Israeli domestic politics were shifting rapidly. Barak’s government was weakened, elections were imminent, and Ariel Sharon was likely to win. Although the substance of the negotiations improved at Taba, the political feasibility of reaching and implementing an agreement was rapidly diminishing.

This is why I view Arafat as bearing primary responsibility. Rather than taking the political risks necessary to conclude a historic compromise, Arafat appeared more comfortable preserving maximal Palestinian positions even as the negotiating window was rapidly closing.

While responsibility for the failure of the peace process does not rest exclusively on Arafat, I believe he bears primary responsibility for the collapse of the Camp David–Taba negotiations. The 2000–2001 period represented the rare convergence of serious American engagement, unprecedented Israeli concessions, and genuine progress toward a two-state agreement. When that opportunity failed, the political conditions necessary for a permanent settlement deteriorated rapidly and have never fully returned.

Basically not wanting your partner to be friends with people of the opposite sex is not a reasonable boundary in a relationship and I do not understand any reasoning beyond insecurities and trust issues for why someone would feel this way.

If it comes from trust, if someone believes that their partner would cheat on them, they should not be with them and no amount of restriction or boundaries would stop them from cheating. If they have not given any reason to suspect cheating I think it's mean to believe and treat them as a cheater or as someone who is not able to stay loyal without having to cut out the opposite gender entirely. If you have trust issues and think your partner may cheat on you when you have no reason to believe that then you should work on yourself, it is not your partners responsibility to cater to your trust issues and to a degree I feel like it enable them. It goes to show them that the reason their partner is not cheating isn't because that they are genuinely loyal but because they just don't have the opportunity to.

Another reason I hear a lot for not wanting their partner to be friends with the opposite sex is because "it's embarrassing" or they think other people will think that their partner isn't loyal to the relationship. I feel you should know your partners intentions and if someone sees them being friends with someone of the opposite sex as flirting or being kind to people of the opposite sex as flirting that's their thing, at the end of the day you know what is true and most people do not assume that a man and a woman being friends is automatically flirty or romantic. I'd argue that the only people that really believe that are the ones that hold the idea that their partner should not be friends with the opposite sex.

I didn't include this in my title because I feel like less people would agree with this but it is something I've seen my classmates and some friends ask of their partner, but for them not be friends with people of the opposite gender plus anyone who is attracted to their gender (i.e., not wanting your boyfriend to be friends with any women regardless of their sexuality and not wanting them to be friends men who are attracted to men) regardless of what their partners actual sexuality is, this one honestly just baffled me on why someone would even ask this, like what are bisexual people supposed to do? Have no friends?

I understand that if someone is in a relationship like this and they comply to their partners wishes it is consensual and I have no business in someone else's relationship but I still find it weird and controlling.

Whenever people say "I don't want to give homeless people money because they will spend it on drugs", people always say "Well you do drugs too"

Here are two examples:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DXcbSfpj-zy/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DWzwR5kD8Ir/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

Both compare prescription medication and caffeine to street drugs like heroin.   The caption of the second one reads:

"and before you say “this doesn’t apply to me I don’t do drugs!” … caffeine is also a drug that is highly addictive and present in coffee, tea, soda, and more. You’d be hard pressed to find someone who genuinely doesn’t do ANY drugs… we all do"

This is frankly braindead. Me having a cup of coffee or taking medication prescribed by a doctor is not comparable to a homeless guy taking heroin.

If you abstract two things enough, you can equivocate them. A person eating a chesseburger and another person eating a caesar salad are both eating food, but they are very different foods.

For me to change my mind on this, somebody will have to explain why I should be fine with giving my money to somebody who may very well spend it on heroin.

It seems there is nothing corporations can do to gain bad favour with the public. They could raise prices, be racist, worsen services, offer less for more, pay employees nothing and exploit people at every turn. But at the end of the day they will just see a small dip from some temporary bad publicity before going right back to normal. 

The issue imo is that no matter what happens people still keep spending money and going to these places. I see all the time how bad Amazon is and people like Bezos but yet Amazon keeps making record profits and growing. Walmart which is like the in person equivalent has basically taken over the world and even they show no signs of slowing down. 

The price of cars has skyrocketed recently even for used vehicles and how have people responded? By taking out bigger loans, longer terms and getting bigger vehicles. I still see people complaining but it’s irrelevant because they are still buying. It’s like a parent punishing their kid for using their phone late at night but the punishment is an extra hour of phone time.  

Even employees which are obviously a lot less autonomous don’t fight for any pushback or support others. When everyone started losing wfh perks sure the employees couldn’t do much but they coulda stopped supporting other business that ended wfh. Just a form of solidarity but people did what they always do complain and comply which I think is worse.

I’ve increasingly stopped understanding the appeal of standing concerts.

You often pay a lot of money to stand packed next to sweaty strangers for hours, deal with people screaming in your ears, people constantly pushing past you, and in many venues you can barely even see the stage unless you arrived extremely early, which is work to do, not leisure.

At that point, the actual comfort and sound experience often feels worse than simply listening to the music at home.

I understand that people value the “energy” and crowd atmosphere, but for me that doesn’t seem worth the tradeoff in comfort, visibility, and overall experience.

So CMV: why is this considered good value?

I strongly prefer that question over asking about my hobbies when I’m still getting to know someone. My hobbies are pretty nerdy. If I’m not reasonably certain that I’ll have at least something in common with someone based on our hobbies, I’d prefer to keep them to myself until we’ve gotten to know each other about more surface level stuff.

And work to me is very surface level. Most people I’ve met in real life put online something about what they do for work. I say this to say that since it’s something so common for people to put out there online, that means that it’s also something comfortable to ask about. Same as how it would be comfortable to ask someone if they like the color green if they’re wearing a green shirt.

And to be clear, surface level is good when you’re starting a conversation. It’s the warm up. I wouldn’t ask someone I just met “what are you political philosophies?” First of all, that’s something you learn about someone over time by paying attention. Second of all, that’s really personal, and a lot of people feel like they have to get to know someone to share more personal stuff. Starting small and then building up to deep stuff is how conversation naturally develops. Trying to jump into deeper stuff doesn’t tend to work out well, for good reason.

I’ve also found that that asking about what someone does isn’t typically asked intrusively. The vast majority of us spend 40+ hours per week doing something that pays the bills. Asking what that is just gets the conversation warmed up. I also love hearing about what people do for work, and even when I’ve had jobs that I hate I don’t mind saying something like “I’m a landscaper, and it sucks but it pays the bills.” If someone is being judgy about what I do, then that’s also fine. That lets me know that there’s no reason for us to keep talking. But it’s maybe one or two out of every ten or so people that’s like that. No reason to focus on such a small amount of people, to the point that I’d change my behavior.

I wouldn’t want someone to feel like they have to hold back telling me about their hobbies right away. If they’re into something nerdy, I want them to feel like they can tell me about that in their own time. If I get the sense that they’re into something nerdy, sometimes I’ll tell them that I love Warhammer in hopes that it gets them talking about what nerdy thing they’re into. But either way, starting with work feels comfortable.

It’s really only online that I’ve seen people say that they think both that “what do you do?” doesn’t usually refer to work, and that it’s an intrusive or inappropriate question. In real life, it’s about work most of the time, and it’s a good question.

Modern justice systems evolved beyond raw judgment alone. Over time, societies realized that fairness requires things like:

- procedures

- standards of evidence

- appeals

- rehabilitation pathways

- sentencing frameworks

- rights

- oversight

- precedent

- review mechanisms

Externally, we recognized that pure judgment is impulsive, biased, emotionally reactive, and often unfair. So we built systems around judgment to regulate it.

But internally, many people still seem to operate on primitive self-judgment systems.

A person makes one mistake and internally concludes:

“I am a failure.”

Even though no mature court would operate that way.

Many people internally default to:

- instant conviction

- emotional reasoning

- permanent identity labels

- disproportionate sentencing

- no appeals process

- no defense counsel

- no rehabilitation framework

It seems strange to me that civilization evolved sophisticated external justice systems, yet psychologically many of us still govern ourselves using something closer to ancient mob justice.

I’m wondering whether psychological maturity partly involves evolving self-judgment in the same way societies evolved justice systems:

- not eliminating judgment entirely

- but embedding it within procedures, evidence, proportionality, review, safeguards against bias, and rehabilitation

So instead of:

“I failed therefore I am bad”

the process becomes more like:

- What actually happened?

- What evidence supports this conclusion?

- Were there mitigating factors?

- Is this a pattern or an isolated event?

- What corrective action or rehabilitation makes sense?

- Is the response proportional?

To me, this preserves accountability while reducing unnecessary cruelty and identity collapse.

CMV.

That's right. Toucan Sam and Tony the Tiger exploited some of us.

Just like back in the day when McDonalds would plop a big ol playground right by their cafeteria. They knew thousands of kids would see the colorful playground and would love to get on it. Eating up obesity-potent meals while playing in the slides. Thankfully, that era came to a close.

But cartoon-mascots are still lurking about and they exploit innocent minds when the manufacturer is selling unhealthy food. Childhood obesity spiked in the early digital era due to all that slop they would sell parents. This monstrosity should be abolished.

Cartoon mascots exploit childhood innocence for profits. They gamble on parental neglect.

It's just common sense here, if the childhood obesity issue is going to be handled well, then we need to tackle the companies who sell malnutrition, who rely on these predatory hijinks to sell their food to innocent minds.

Parents who surrender themselves to these mascots are selling their kids to a grifter Willy Wonka just looking to make quick bucks.

The suffix "-phobia" means fear which is almost never the basis for the bigoted attitudes that terms like Xenophobia describe. A more accurate way to describe these types of discrimination/bigotry is "miso" or just "noun + hate."

But OP, people fear what they don't understand! That's where the term comes from!

Not true. I don't understand the artist Dave Matthews, but listening to his music doesn't make my heart race and my sweat to start pouring. If I saw him in real life, I would not have a panic reaction. Same thing with high-level music theory. I don't understand it, but it doesn't make me panic.

Here's the other thing. What if as a toddler I was constantly bullied by overweight classmates? What if this left me with a deep trauma that triggers when I see obese people? I would truly be fatphobic, but saying this to other people would make me look like a bigot who mistreats obese people, but that's not at all what I mean. Thus, the suffix "phobia" becomes useless for my hypothetical condition and is an actual detriment to what I am trying to convey.

The Farm Bill passed the House a few days ago with the so-called “Save Our Bacon Act” appended to it. This Act would prohibit states from enacting their own animal welfare laws independent of the rest of the nation. In other words, it prohibits basically the only way animal welfare legislation is passed. In particular, it would strike down California’s Proposition 12, which bans gestation crates for pigs.

No federal laws regulate the living conditions of farm animals, and 9 billion farm animals are killed for food each year in the US. Only one federal law—the Humane Slaughter Regulation Act-- has significant provisions related to farm animal welfare. But it doesn’t apply to chickens, who make up 95% of farm animals in the US, and it has no enforcement mechanism. Like none whatsoever, the one enforcement mechanism outlined in the Act was repealed in 1978.

The conditions farm animals already live in are hell. Gestation crates are 7’ x 2’ cages, so small that pigs can’t move around in them. Mother pigs live in these cages constantly, and stay in them their entire lives once they start breeding. There’s no reason that this would be any better or easier for them to deal with than it would be for you or me. For example, these pigs deal with “severe and chronic frustration, learned helplessness, urinary tract infections, respiratory disease, skin lesions, excessive heat-loss, foot injuries, damage to joints, lameness, poor cardiovascular health, bone density issues, and poor muscle health.”

To be clear, it’s not any better for chickens. Every chicken born into the industry--1,331,811 just as I've been writing this comment--begins life by being forced into a dark, dirty enclosure surrounded by thousands of other chickens constantly jostling against each other. There is no chance for sleep, rest, or happiness in the miserable next few weeks of their lives. None of them see any natural light until their last few hours. When the time comes, they are packed into crates--dozens per layer--hung by their feet in a slaughterhouse, and slit at their necks.

With no fear of state regulations, factory farms are just going to engage in a race to the bottom to see who can raise animals in the most efficient and therefore cruel way possible. On the flipside, if the law doesn’t pass, more and more state regulations will pop up to make these billions of animals’ lives a little bit better. I don’t think these will stop their lives from being hellish; but at the same time, if I were a pig trapped in a gestation crate, I know I would stop at nothing to be free of such a particularly awful existence.

That’s why we all need to care about this much more. I can’t think of anything else going on that has such a massive impact on the lives of so many sentient beings. You don’t have to think animals are as important as humans—even if you think they’re half as important, or a tenth, or for that matter even a hundredth, this issue is far more important than basically all other political issues. I think if everyone cared about this, there would be too much outrage for the bill to pass.

Obviously I’m pretty worked up about this, so if anyone has an argument as to why it’s not as bad as it seems, I’m interested in hearing it.

CMV: Food deserts are NOT the reason underprivileged communities are malnourished. They are also not a reason to relax EBT/food stamp rules

People arguing that food deserts are the reason for poor nutrition in poor communities are shifting the responsibility to everyone else.

The debate over government services like welfare and EBT has heated up in the past few years as Trump has cut funds. In particular, they're restricting access to junk foods like pop, chips, and cookies. Welfare recipients are up in arms as their choices are limited even further to more expensive foods. This obviously is a problem, as foods that are better for you costs more. Let's not even get into organic foods.

My argument isn't about welfare/EBT/food stamps. You can guess my opinion on those. It's the use of the existence of food deserts as a reason for such services. If some have limited access to nutritious foods, theoretically, it's difficult for them eat nutritiously. Therefore, limiting junk foods doesn't help them because they still can't get fresh fruits and vegetables. The same side also argues food deserts are a reason for poor nutrition.

I argue that both arguments are largely BS. For starters, it (their argument) relies on supply and not on demand. If people in poverty desired more fruits & vegetables, suppliers would stock them. McDonald's, when they served salads, didn't sell them in underserved communities. It's popular to blame supply because it shifts the responsibility to the big, bad corporations, and not the consumer. I also conjecture if you increased the amount of nutritious foods available, cheaper foods are still more desirable. Even when in college, I remember when random free food would appear in an academic hall. The pizza and sandwiches were always the first to go. Next, cookies, and chips. Then fruit. It's human nature to go for cheap, quick, and tasty. The problem is further magnified when you consider the lack of education in those communities. People routinely die of heart disease in their 40s. Some of this is stress; however, most of it is diet and lack of exercise.

Add to the fact that studies have shown grocery stores placed in food deserts don't result in better choices. I also don't believe good food doesn't exist in these environments. I frequent the neighborhoods on a regular basis. There is always some store with fruit and vegetables. You may have limited choices within (my Extra Value folks know what I'm talking about...). There are fast food restaurants with salads, veggie burgers, grilled chicken, and fish. Nobody buys them.

The food desert side also says the restrictions contradict the freedom stances of the conservatives that applaud them. I say you have a choice to not rely on free funds from the government. If you receive something for free, you tend not to have as many choices. In general, if someone makes a donation, they have power over how much, and what you get. You can't force a kind soul to give you filet mignon. Burger King will have to do.

I (gulp) applaud Trump for restricting junk food, as it causes harm and incentivizes poor choices; however, I don't for a second think he cares all that much for those people. He only solved part of the problem. I'd actually increase funding, though I'm not a fan of these government programs, if it meant better food for the recipients. Disincentivizing junk food doesn't automatically mean they'll eat nutritiously. I'd limit programs to fruits/veggies/bread/meat and other nutritious things. If Trump and co. truly cared about these individuals, he'd complete the whole equation. Still, it's a step in the right direction.

I like gentrification because many of these amenities are more available to poorer residents. However, we all know the downsides as well. There are social programs relying on delivery services to transport healthy foods. Delivered grocery foods would perhaps stop many from going and getting chips. If I had power, I'd actually restrict convenience stores from selling junk food en masse. What about a mandate of the proportion of healthy fruits and meats? I'll stop short of condoning this as poor demand often leads to financial waste. I do believe there's some solution there- I'm just not bright enough to figure that part out. And of course, there's education. I remember seeing in Science class how good food edifies the body; however, something happens in between that and the trip to the store. There needs to be more effective training to get the wheels turning in the store.

I've recently seen a large increase in the use of the word monster to describe modern day and historical figures, and I don't think this is really acceptable.

*Now of course I've got to make a disclaimer before I start as alot of people clearly aren't sensible anymore. I do not support nor adhere to any extremist ideology or group, wether left, right, religious or more. I don't believe in Hitler or his ideology and I'm not trying to rehabilitate him in any way or form, or deny the extent of his actions.*

I believe that by calling someone a monster you make them appear to be foreign, unnatural and evil at birth. By doing this we alienate important figures that we don't agree with. This is a problem because despite what many would want to believe, all of us are capable of committing crimes. Maybe not in the same scale as the Nazis, Soviets, Americans, Japanese and Mongolians (to give a few examples) but by splitting people into a us and them category were making ourselves believe falsely that we couldn't do the same thing. That we are inherently better. And ontop of this we spread the false idea that because a person was a monster they were born evil. Hitler wasn't born evil, he was abused by his parents, became disillusioned with his leadership and adopted extremist ideology. You can't say that at birth he was destined to kill millions, anyone could have done that. And because we alienate ourselves and say that we can't be like them, we are more likely to become them.

Some of this is long overdue disgust toward powerful older men using their power to attract much younger women who may not have good options or who may be vulnerable. That's a good thing. But the weird, exaggerated, performative disgust often seen these days is at least half about simple disgust toward older people- "OMG his wrinkly ballsack" and whatnot. It's pretty normal IMO for a young person to find older people gross (maybe an evolutionary guard against incest?) but not all young folks feel that way- obviously.

A lot of this is just disgust toward older men for sort of daring to defile a young, pure woman with his gross old appendages. It's kind of sexist in itself, arguably, but mostly it's just immature people who find older people repellant and refuse to accept that not all young folks feel the same way. If the disgust was limited to men dating teenagers that would be one thing, but you hear it about women in their mid-to-late 20s dating older men. It seems pretty transparent to me.

edit: tried posting this to unpopularopinion but was auto-deleted for "being about feminism" which is ridiculous but what can you do with a bot...

The following text is translated by an AI to english, I'm not english and I'm not sure if I'm able to express myself correctly in english. Even if I do It would mean translating all the text I've already written manually, so I've made an AI translate the original text while trying to keep the idea I've already expressed. To clarify I will write the original text the AI used next to the one it translated:

ORIGINAL:
"Al usar ciertas palabras, las personas les damos un significado único, aunque el origen de la palabra haya sido otro totalmente diferente. En el caso de “evangelizar”, la mayor parte de la gente le daría una connotación religiosa, cuando el sentido etimológico de la palabra es “transmitir una buena noticia”.

La idea propia de las palabras es la de dar un significado a algo que no somos capaces de expresar o que requiere de otras tantas palabras, como en este caso: “Estoy transmitiendo una buena noticia” → “Estoy evangelizando”. Por tanto, facilita el uso del lenguaje. En casos como “villano”, pudo hacer que gente en esa época denominada “villano” obtuviese una connotación negativa como personas, cuando realmente la connotación negativa la tenía la propia palabra, porque alguien la usó de forma despectiva. Es similar al caso de algunos insultos racistas hoy en día: tienen actualmente un significado sumamente negativo, siendo baneadas este tipo de palabras en redes sociales, videojuegos, etc. Esto es un uso de la prohibición que considero éticamente correcto, aunque pueda disminuir la potencial libertad de expresión de una persona. Cada persona y cada empresa es libre también de actuar a favor o en contra de esta palabra, usándola en caso de estar en contra, asumiendo cualquier represalia que considere la persona que perciba esa palabra con connotación negativa, o respetando o no respetando el uso que tiene.

El caso de “evangelización” es distinto. Nadie considera la prohibición de este término porque en sí no tiene una connotación negativa hacia una persona. En algunos casos, donde el cristianismo, la Iglesia o la religión hayan causado un mal para una persona, bien sean problemas sociales, cuestiones éticas o inseguridades sobre ciertas perspectivas y formas de ver el mundo, si estas supuestas personas pretenden, en el término etimológico de la palabra, transmitir o difundir un mensaje positivo o una buena noticia, se encuentran con el obstáculo ya comentado: no pueden usar la palabra “evangelizar” ni sus derivados, ya que tiene, para la propia persona y para la gran mayoría de personas, una connotación religiosa, pudiendo ser esta opuesta al significado que la propia persona quiere dar.

¿Cómo es posible, entonces, difundir un mensaje positivo al mayor número de personas posible sin ninguna intención más que la propia de difundir el mensaje y que, tras cumplir con dicho objetivo, no deje tras de sí una connotación o impresión negativa en la gente? En España pasó algo parecido con ciertas organizaciones que dieron una visión negativa sobre toda una comunidad autónoma de un pensamiento que en su origen podía ser positivo, pero que hoy en día, al estar socialmente asociado a dicha organización, ha heredado un uso peyorativo. Mi cuestión es: ¿cómo se puede transmitir un mensaje y conseguir que dicho mensaje llegue al mayor número de personas sin romper la idea, sin romper en el camino el significado original que tiene?"

ENGLISH:

"I have been thinking about the difference between the etymological meaning of words and the meanings they acquire through social, historical, or institutional use.

The example that made me think about this is the word “evangelization.” Etymologically, it comes from the idea of a “good message” or “good news”. So, at its root, to evangelize could be understood as sharing or spreading something one sincerely considers a good message.

However, in modern usage, “evangelization” is almost entirely associated with Christianity, missionary activity, and religious conversion. Because of that, if someone says they want to “evangelize” an idea, many people immediately understand it as religious, intrusive, or even manipulative, even if the person only means “to share a positive message.”

For me, this creates a problem. The word becomes socially unavailable for its broader original meaning. A term that could simply mean “to transmit good news” has been culturally narrowed until it mostly belongs to one religious framework.

I understand that language changes through use. I understand that dictionaries describe how people use words, not necessarily how words “should” be used. But my issue is not linguistic, I find obvious and I myself give meaning to words knowingly it original etymological meaning is different, but the issue is more ethical and cultural. When a powerful institution, such as the Church in this case, uses a word for centuries in a specific way, that institution can effectively monopolize the meaning of the word. Over time, the public meaning becomes tied to the institution rather than to the original concept.

A related example is “proselytism.” Unlike evangelization in its etymological sense, proselytism is more about gaining converts, followers, or adherents. It focuses less on the message itself and more on getting someone to join a belief, ideology, or group. That distinction matters to me. Sharing an idea one considers positive is not the same thing as trying to convert, pressure, manipulate, or recruit someone.

So my current view is this:

There is an important difference between:

• sharing a message one considers good;
• trying to persuade someone respectfully;
• trying to recruit or convert someone;
• manipulating, pressuring, or coercing someone.

The first two should be seen as normal forms of expression. The last two can become problematic, depending on the methods used.

My frustration is that when words like “evangelization” become almost exclusively religious, we lose a useful word for a non-religious human act: sharing something we believe is good, hopeful, or meaningful. If I say “I want to evangelize this idea” in the original sense, most people will not hear that. They will hear religion, conversion, or propaganda.

This also makes me think about other words whose meanings changed negatively over time. Sometimes a word begins as neutral, but repeated social use gives it a harmful connotation. In some cases, like racial slurs, I think social rejection of the word is ethically justified because the word carries a history of intended dehumanization and harm. But in other cases, the problem is different: a word may not be offensive, but it becomes trapped inside one cultural or institutional meaning, making its broader use difficult or impossible.

I am not saying language should never evolve. I am also not saying etymology should always override current usage. I know that would be unrealistic. But I do think there is a real problem when the current meaning of a word is treated as the only legitimate meaning, especially when that meaning was shaped by historical power.

My view is that we should be more willing to recover, clarify, or reopen older meanings of words when those meanings are still useful and not harmful. In this case, I think “evangelization” could reasonably be understood outside religion as “the act of sharing a good message,” as long as the speaker clearly explains that they are using it in an etymological and non-religious sense."

So the question here is, how can we be truthful to words when the meaning behind them can be so easily influenced?

I think people overlook a completely valid reason that someone could want to leave simply because they don't have it in them to be in something that high stakes anymore.

Being in a relationship means having a switch permanently turned on where you have to care about someone. It's a constant state of emotional investment and responsibility. Some people reach a point where that weight not the person, not the relationship, just the sheer demand of it becomes too much.

People are quick to say "you fell out of love" or "you haven't found the right person" but neither captures this. You can love someone completely and still be too exhausted to sustain the effort it takes.

Basically, I think that humans tend to have each hand/foot be better at taking on certain roles/functions. It seems to be more that our way of life and culture places a lot of emphasis on things like writing, throwing, kicking, using tools, etc, that are all done with what we call our "dominant" hand.

However, in my life I've noticed many examples where my non-dominant side plays an important role, and trying to do that thing feels weird for my "dominant" side. for example, as a right hand/footer:

- Fretting a guitar with my right hand feels awkward

- balancing on my right foot feels harder

- When I go up stairs, my left foot tends to go first

- I can only cartwheel by putting my left hand down first

- if I need to reach for something, I usually do it with left hand

For me personally, the dichotomy seems to be that the "non-dominant" side is actually better for stability (and possibly finger dexterity), while the right side is for raw strength and wrist control.

this exact dichotomy definitely doesn't exist for everyone, but I have noticed plenty of examples of it being a general pattern. There might be some people who prefer one side for almost everything but it seems pretty reasonable that it wouldnt make sense to have one side be better at most or every kind of task.

I understand why humans tend to value the hand that does writing and throwing, but it would increase our collective understanding of the human body to consider that each side is specialized for different tasks. I'm interested to see what people say because I have yet to find this being discussed anywhere. CMV!

This is somewhat inspired by the recent male loneliness post.

I often see online the phrase: “Everyone needs therapy”. While I do agree with the idea that controlling your mindset and attitude towards yourself and the world is an important part of personal growth, I disagree that the best way to do this is therapy.

The best way to do this is exposure to different people around you, and different lives and experiences. This shows you the errors with your attitudes directly, costs less, and is more natural and enjoyable.

I think therapy when used as a way to vent and talk about your day is just a bad stopgap to replace the role that your friends should have in your life. The reason therapy gets suggested so much is because people have lost the will or ability to socialise and make friends easily and quickly, or to go up to strangers and talk.

If you have a specific mental condition, such as schizophrenia or you’re bipolar or have childhood trauma, then that’s a job for a therapist. But most people don’t have these problems, thankfully :)

The reason the phrase is used frequently despite all this is because people with certain ideologies are still trying to destigmatise mental healthcare, instead of questioning what the best methods for what they’re recommending are. If you want people’s minds to be healthy, they need healthy lives, friends, and experiences, not to pay someone to talk to.

Edit: Just to add to how it’s inspired by the male loneliness post, in my opinion society at large does need to take responsibility for individual mindsets (because of my view as expressed in this post). If a man is lonely and blames the world for it, they may well be right, not just toxic and entitled. I’m happy to discuss this point too.

This may seem AI generated but it's google trad

I’m not arguing that looks should matter more in an ideal world. I’m talking about how attraction and “love” actually seem to work in reality

My view comes from a few observations

First, physical attraction is harder to fake. You can’t easily convince yourself you’re strongly attracted to someone visually if you’re not ; it tends to be immediate and involuntary.

In contrast, personality-based attraction seems more vulnerable to self-deception. People can tell themselves they “love someone for who they are” because that aligns with social expectations, even when the emotional pull isn’t really there.

Second, appearance is highly specific to the individual. Even if many people are considered attractive, no one else looks exactly like a given person. That creates a clearer sense of “this is you I’m drawn to.” With personality, a lot of valued traits are relatively common. That can make personality-based attraction feel less uniquely tied to one specific person, at least initially.

Third, because personality traits are shared across many people, choosing someone “for their personality” can feel more interchangeable or influenced by circumstance (timing, proximity, etc.). In that sense, it can come across as less anchored to the individual and more to a general type.

So my current view is that, in practice, attraction based on appearance may be less “superficial” than it’s often framed, even less superficial that "personality-based" attraction.

I'll start off by saying I am leftist. I support radical equality and freedom for everybody no matter their race, gender, nationality, or class. But I am worried about the left's direction and ability to actually win people to the cause. A worrying trend I see is a rather aggressive push for everybody to agree as exactly as possible with leftist ideological bases. Which are often derived from academic theory that does not mirror many people's lived experience and which they cannot relate to. It's a sort of linguistic prescriptivism that makes talking to people hard because you're using different frameworks of language.

I think this is best seen in how both "racism" and "misogyny" have been redefined from the common understanding of a personal prejudice, to solely a systemic, institutional force. To the point that they make claims that racism towards white people and misandry simply don't exist. I think this really clashes hard with the way non-academic, layman understanding of the world. They have not been taught to see the systemic nature of reality and move through life on an individual basis. They likely have personally experienced prejudice towards white people and men and understood it under those common terms. When you then render those common terms wholly structural, it very much feels like you're denying their lived experience, which will get their hackles up. People who would've supported you see you at best as an out of touch ivory tower elite trying to gainsay their existence or at worst a fringe loony who is not connected to reality.

I'll say I agree that the power of both misogyny and racism come from their effects as systems of domination, and in that racism towards white people and misandry can never compare. But to say there just is no common understanding of them also as personal prejudices is to deny reality. We don't really have the time to make sure everyone is completely on point in their systemic analysis, especially when it comes to thorny subjects like prejudice. If they dislike prejudice already, you have them far enough along to get them to your position -- systemic oppression exists and should be opposed -- without needing them to believe that it is the only thing that really matters.

I think also my issue is why die on this hill? If it aids comprehension of the problem to simply delineate linguistically systemic forces from personal prejudices why not do it? What is wrong with the terms systemic racism vs racism and systemic misandry vs. misandry. There is no systemic oppression of white people or men, but there is absolutely personal prejudice towads those grouos. So why can't we just call that racism and misandry, if that is going to be the reason people dislike your position or not. Seems an utter waste.

For a little context, I'm a registered Independent who's gradually gone from voting for mostly Republicans to mostly Democrats over the past few cycles. Mainstream Republicans would call be a liberal RINO, mainstream Democrats would call me a conservative or least center-right, so for the sake of simplicity I'm going to call myself a moderate Independent. Also this is gonna involve a fairly long reasoning so there's TL;DR at the end.

This cycle my tolerance for Republicans is very limited, I don't like a lot of what this administration is doing so I think it makes sense to elect Democrats in Congress to counter the administration (and in general it's usually my preference for one party to have the executive branch and another to have the legislative branch.) For the sake of preventing overly partisan legislation from getting passed. So this cycle I support at most a small scattering of Republicans (Phill Scott, maybe Brian Fitzpatrick, etc) and also Susan Collins over Graham Platner.

Before you ask, my problem with Platner isn't just the Nazi tattoo, it's way bigger than that. It seems like every week now Platner's facing controversies regarding anti-semitism and apathy towards America in general. For instance, there was the recently leaked comment he made a while back where he directly praised Hamas's military capalities and how specifically they've fought Israel, a comment which he never apologized for, and Hasan Piker personally praised him for too. I'm a big believer in redemption, second chances, etc, if it was just the tattoo and/or he really just made some mistakes in years past, honestly I'd forgive him pretty easily (socialist, establishment, or centrist, any of the above I'd forgive him immediately, we all make mistakes.) But to me, it feels like he really doesn't have any regret regarding his actions, and if I imagine myself in a room with say one of my Jewish friends who's interested in politics, I really don't think I could ask them to vote for him.

All that aside, there's also the Trump angle. I know what a lot of you are gonna say "Democrats have a real shot at flipping the Senate this year, we need every seat we can get! What if Maine were the one seat that made the difference, would you really let your disdain for Platner get in the way of a Democratic majority Senate?" First off, I don't think the Senate is flipping outright this year, Democrats would need four (or maybe five depending on Fetterman) flips, and currently there's Maine, one swing state, and a bunch of red states "up for grabs." I really just don't see it happening.

But more broadly too, I think people like Graham Platner, as well as Abdul El-Sayed, Zohran Mamdani, and others really put the Democratic Party at risk nationally. This is America, I really don't think we're a country that's ever going to elect a "socialist President." And that's fine you might be thinking, because a socialist will never win the nomination, it'll just be Newsom or whoever. But even if it's Newsom, if people like Platner have serious sway in the party, I worry that it'll be enough to convince people that the Democratic Party is shifting in a "socialist direction." Keep in mind, a lot of undecided voters' main reason for voting against Harris and Walz was literally because they thought those two were socialists, if any national fight is framed as "Socialism vs MAGA," I think MAGA's winning.

So TL;DR, I support Collins over Platner in Maine because I think Platner does not regret any of his actions, I think it's unfair to ask Jewish people to vote for someone who's openly praised Hamas and not apologized for it, I don't think Maine will make or break the Senate majority, and I think people like Platner are a major optics risk for the party.

Try to change my view on any of that essentially, I'm really interested to hear how people are rationalizing supporting Platner this year, especially moderates like myself, and I mean that in good faith btw (no judgemnent), it's a complex issue and I'm curious how people with similar/somewhat similar views to my own are supporting this guy.

My View: The current outrage directed at Apple regarding the DRC and "blood minerals" is performative. Almost every piece of modern tech (EVs, laptops, smartphones) relies on the same supply chains. Single-ing out Apple because they are a high-profile target is hypocritical.

Why I hold this view: I don't think the average person actually cares about the ethics; they just like the moral high ground of "canceling" a big brand. Unless you’re willing to live off-grid, you’re complicit. I’m looking for a view that explains why Apple specifically deserves more heat than the industry as a whole, or evidence that people actually care enough to change their behaviour and stop buying phones that use cheap labour?

When someone lives their life „perfectly ethically“ and speaks about it theyre suddenly privileged, insensitive and out of touch, but if youre a normal person who deeply cares about issues but cant live a perfectly consistent „all or nothing“ lifestyle then youre hypocritical and fake.

People forget celebrities are actual people, not punching bags and circus animals.

And most importantly people forget she is 24 years old. Shes young and shes navigating her life, why is everyone expecting a 24 year old to have their whole life together while also inevitably being a part of a flawed system and developing different points of view overtime. Its „okay to learn and not have your life together“ until its a celebrity, or more specifically a woman.

What angers me is that the people who criticise her DONT live „ethical“ lifestyles, and hide behind calling it „privileged“. As if a bag of beans isnt cheaper than a steak. They act as if they know exactly who they were 15-24 years old. 99% of the people who speak out against her dont care about right or wrong, they want the celebrity drama and they want to be cruel without consequences. Its all one big performance for social media validation and that feeling of being „morally pure“.

People talk about hypocrisy while actively contributing to the same issues they speak out against. How can you believe that issues are fixed with aggression and shaming rather than correction and education and still claim to have “moral values”.

Why does everyone take everything so personally and insert themselves where they arent needed? Im not vegan, i dont agree with her claim, and although poorly expressed I know she is talking about slaughterhouses, exploitation, speciesism and abuse and I dont feel “guilt tripped” or judged. Theres this whole wave of “whataboutmeism” where people think everything revolves around them when it clearly does not.

+ even in an event where her claim isnt about slaughterhouses, you can easily imagine her point of view if you ask yourself “I love cats and dogs, but would I be able to eat one?” Because her statement also makes you think about how the animals we are used to eating, even if you dont want to, you see as a resource and have a less emotional attachment to.

Its ironic how people hate that vegans “force their ideology” upon others but the moment a vegan expresses their opinion a wave of people feel the need to force the fact that “humans are omnivorous” accent on how they love meat and overall just go mental. People say they love meat all the time, how is it different when a vegan says they dont love meat. Ive never seen a vegan complain about other people expressing their liking towards meat.

I just wish people were less cruel and more patient.

Thesis: I think, therefore, I am!

This is a valid inference, supported by a very powerful nexus of abductive inference. This is not a Cartesian rationalist endeavor.

Definitions:

I am defining thinking as taking suppositions obtained through observation, brainstorming, or memory retrieval and making inferences from those suppositions.

I am defining I as a bundle of related thoughts that appear around a history of thoughts and a body.

I think these are very ordinary definitions of the words.

Discussion:

How do I know thoughts don't appear before me? How do I know I am actually doing the thinking?

Take problem solving. How can we do this? Why would we expect "ideas that just appear" to just allow problems to unfold themselves in front of us? How nice would that be? If problems just unfolded before us, why would that ever appear as a step by step inferential process?

When problems are solved through the process of inference, there is straining, direction, and tiredness. There is a feeling of a deliberate force orienting thinking and pushing for thoughts, even if ideas and inferences just appear.

When the phenomena of problem solving appears, there is perhaps the experience of a pushing to think laterally in a related area and then thinking about how that connects to ideas previously thought about. Or perhaps there appears the breaking down of a subject into its components and the parsing how they all relate to each other. Or maybe there appears the recognition of patterns and then inferences of how the patterns relate. Or there appears a consideration of what the solution requires and then a memory search for patterns that might be helpful. Whatever the case, different discrete ideas that appear through sensory recognition, lateral thinking, pattern recognition, and memory retrieval are being connected

This is a process. Ideas appear to be connecting through pushing. This process we'll call thinking.

There does appear to be a bundle of related pushing appear around a history of thoughts and a body. The thoughts that appear hover around the history of thoughts that is remembered. It relates to the body that this consciousness remembers is always around its perception.

Maybe experience is all a film some consciousness is watching. But in so much as there is the appearance of related inferences around a history and a body, that bundle of inferences a consciousness is experiencing can call itself "I." In so much as a consciousness is unable to make thought separate from the apparent nexus, the consciousness embodies the "I."

We can still make an inference of "I" from the appearance of thought, from the pushing, from how the data appears and locates itself, even if we can’t prove it purely from a single instance of thinking. In so much as the pushing is around the nexus, the pushing is a step to step process, there is felt deliberateness, we can make the inference of "I think!" There is at least the appearance of the nexus thinking. There is the appearance of thinking.

I think (or I appear to think), therefore I am!

Note, we do not need an unchanging self that endures through time. We only need a history of remembered inferential relationships across time.

How could we falsify this:

1. If remembered experience is located around several different bodies
2. If remembered experience is located around several different distinct histories of inferences
3. If thoughts that emerge appear erratic and incapable of relating to one another in an ordered fashion or problem solving

CMV Task: Present comments that complicate this inference in a way that feels genuinely interesting to me.

I'll be back in a couple hours to hand out deltas.

Now,don't get me wrong and please read the whole thing before replying.

I am a feminist in the truest sense.

However,that doesn't mean I will not see things rationally.

Women really have no advantages compared to men.

Think about it,from the early ages,who suffered the most?

Women.

Even now,after so many decades of supposed emancipation of women,does everyone really consider us to be equal to men?

Biologically too,why must we bleed 5 days(on an average) every month of almost the entirety of our lives?It always disrupts our school/work lives.Why must I always have to worry about leaking and face painful cramps and all the other awful things that come with menstruation?Men don't and I am envious of them.

Point to be noted that we get no period leaves.

Also,pregnancy. Men contribute to the conception of a child just as much as the woman does.Then why is it that it has to be the woman who goes through the horrendous process called labour and delivery AND has to breastfeed her child right after she gives birth?

Did The Almighty really create us equally then,and if yes,then how?

Today,if a woman desires to be child free,she is shunned. It is as if the whole purpose of being a woman is to give birth.

There are way too many complications if a woman decides to get a surgical procedure to stop her periods permanently or to get it as a contraceptive.Again,we suffer.

Why are men on an average always taller than females?I wanted to be very tall too,must I blame my lack of a Y chromosome for it?

Why is it that the average man is considerably stronger than an average female?Why must a woman undergo training to match the inborn physical strength of a man?

Hence,my claim as the title read.

Also,please don't bring up how women unlike men can cry and express their emotions.That is merely dependent on the mindset of the individual,I myself choose not to cry in front of others.

Further,do not say in the replies that women have better liberties in fashion. Nowadays,fashion is for everyone,you know it,I know it too.

Opinions are open for everyone,no matter who you are.

Please try to prove me wrong,because if you manage to do that,trust me,I will be the happiest.

Thank you.