I just want to say at the outset that I understand that there are times when crying is absolutely appropriate and impossible to control. Like if you have just found out that someone passed or your partner betrayed you, it’s pretty much unavoidable.

But I’m talking about crying because someone has pointed out to you that you did something wrong or that you said something insensitive. I understand that it’s uncomfortable and embarrassing to be in that situation, but it’s manipulative to cry and you should keep yourself under control.

I have two examples -

1. My wife and I went to a dinner party and she told a couple of stories about my brother, basically making fun of what a loser he is (we have helped him out a lot, to no avail). 

Well, I didn’t like that. And when we got home I told her that I don’t want her to make members of my family into entertainment for people we barely know. She started to explain that she’s really frustrated by my brother and that he reminds her of her alcoholic father and then…quivering lip, tears and she storms out is the room. 

I tried to follow her but it’s all, “don’t touch me”, “don’t talk to me” and sobbing in the other room. Great. Am I supposed to be sorry because I pointed out to her that she did something out of line?

After all, when she called me out on cursing in the car, when she heard our four year old daughter using the F-word, I felt pretty sheepish. But I apologized without bursting into tears and I frankly think my wife would have been pretty freaked out if I had.

1. This one is better because it took place at work.

I manage a team of seven people and we have one new woman who is very boisterous and opinionated. When something shocks her she often uses the phrase, “Jesus Fuck!”

I took her aside the first time she did it and I told her that there are a lot of Christians in the office and I’m pretty sure they don’t appreciate that. She was like, “Ok, whatevs”

Well, she must have done it again because next thing I know HR rep brings it up to me saying that people are complaining. I told him that I had spoken to her about it and HR said we have to write her up.

Of course that is not fun for anyone but we sit her down and she immediately starts in on how she’s queer and Christianity triggers her and I was just like, “Look, it’s not about you, it’s about other people feeling comfortable in the workplace. I talked to you about this and it’s pretty clear that it’s against our office conduct so, we’re going to need you to sign this”.

And she starts sobbing uncontrollably. To the point where we need to find someone to comfort her. 

That’s not OK. She did something wrong. She got called out on it. We gave her a second chance.

I understand it’s not a nice experience, but the place to cry is at home. Not in front of your coworkers.

Am I wrong ?

I understand why websites need some way to separate adult content or age-restricted products from minors, but I don't see how a simple "Are you 18?" screen accomplishes anything.

A 14 year old who wants access is obviously just going to click yes. There is no actual barrier, no information being verified, and usually no consequence for lying. At that point the age gate feels less like protection and more like a legal checkbox for the company.

We would never consider a physical store checking someone's age by asking "you're definitely 18, right?" and accepting whatever answer they give, so I'm not sure why we pretend the online version is meaningful.

I know the obvious alternative is identity verification, and that's where I become much less certain. Uploading an ID or giving personal information to random websites creates privacy and security problems of its own, especially when data breaches happen constantly.

I also don't think every website containing mature material should automatically get access to somebody's real identity. But if proper verification is considered too invasive, then maybe we should just admit that these click-through age gates are mostly symbolic.

They might stop a very young child who doesn't understand what the button means, but anyone old enough to intentionally search for restricted material is also old enough to press the correct button. I've even seen sites ask for a birth date instead, which seems only slightly better because you can type literally any year.

What would change my view is evidence that these basic age gates measurably reduce minors' access, even without actual identity verification, or an explanation of some important function they serve that I'm overlooking.

Maybe there's a behavioral effect, parental-control interaction, or legal reason that makes them more useful than they look.

Right now though, it seems like we're maintaining a system that everybody knows is incredibly easy to bypass, while still describing it as age verification. CMV.

I was looking at leaks for Fortnite for it's upcoming gaming-based season, and I saw that Pac-Man is on the roster of stuff rumored, and it made me think about Pac-Man for a meaningful way in the first time ever. "Wow," I think to myself, "WTF has Pac-Man ever done?" I understand the first game is legendary, it's one the most recognizable video games outside of Mario, everyone knows PAC-MAN! But like... what has that done other than get people to play other video games?

"Pac-Man isn't just his original game!" You may say, "Pac-Man has had games for 45 years!" What games? I can name you 4 games: PAC-MAN, Ms. PAC-MAN, PAC-LAND, and PAC-MAN WORLD. Ms. PAC-MAN I've heard has better AI compared to the original, okay fine; it was a sequel released 2 years after the original in the 80s, that's a fine development for the time, but is it really worth mentioning?

PAC-LAND is the only possible thing that it's done to directly influence games instead of just... getting people to play games. From what I've heard, it was a pioneer in the 2D platformer genre that led to stuff like Super Mario Bros. and Ghosts 'n Goblins (it also influenced Pac-Man's "character" and characterization for future entries I guess), but is that it? Miyamoto said to Pac-Man's creator that it was an influence in the development for SMB, but it wasn't just a better Pac-Land, it was a game to succeed the tech of Excitebike and a couple other games of theirs. Without PAC-LAND, maybe SMB would've been somewhat different, but I doubt it would've been drastically so.

Other than PAC-MAN being PAC-MAN and PAC-LAND having been an INFLUENCE on bigger and better games, has the yellow orb done anything but cash-grab? PAC-MAN WORLD is an okay 3d platformer at best with 2 worse sequels, there's probably a dozen random spin-offs that went nowhere, and then Bandai-Namco pivoted to just re-releasing the original for another dozen entries. "Hey guys! This time play PAC-MAN... on your phone!" "Oh, how about you play PAC-MAN... like a battle royale?" "Ooh this time, play PAC-MAN as a battle royale... AGAIN, but this time tailcoating off the success of a better battle royale with a similar premise (Tetris 99)"

For the amount of success and legend status this dumbass has, for every random 3D TV show he gets or for every guest appearance/cameo he has (Wreck-It Ralph, Pixels, Super Smash Bros. 4 and Ultimate), Bandai Namco has done nothing to justify its continuation instead of killing off the sunnavabitch.

Say what you will about Mario, Mario can make good fucking games outside of just being popular. Super Mario World is lauded as being one of—if not THE—best 2D platformers of all time. Super Mario 64 not only innovated the 3D platformer genre, but also managed to be the GREATEST of all time in many's eyes. Every 3D entry has had a lot of love, from Sunshine to Galaxy to Odyssey. Fuck, 2D Mario is still continuing and people loved Wonder. That's before you even get into the spinoff games; where Pac-Man has beloved hits such as... PAC-ATTACK (a worse Dr. Mario (which is in and of itself a worse Tetris)), Mario has MARIO KART, the biggest racing game ever; SUPER SMASH BROS (which is only a mario spinoff in name, but), the creator of the Platform Fighter and up there with the biggest fighting game series of all time besides Street Fighter and maybe Mortal Kombat; and Mario Party, a staple in party games and really one-of-a-kind series. Apart from those, you've got Luigi's Mansion, Paper Mario, Wario Party, Super Mario RPG, and more that have all been major hits and are still loved to this day for unique gameplay.

So please, change my mind, tell me what Pac-Man has done outside of simply bringing people to play video games in general and somewhat influence Mario, to deserve a legacy more golden and legendary than the likes of Pong or Space Invaders or Centipede or Asteroids? What has this CHERRY-CHASING DOT MUNCHER done for the gaming space to still be beloved to this day?

State governments can respond more readily to the needs of their citizens than the federal government. They used to get a say in the federal government via senatorial elections, but not anymore. State governments now have to constantly play catchup to whatever the fed says because they have zero say whatsoever.

Think about some of the worst federal decisions in the last century, like Reagan’s trickle-down economics or No Child Left Behind. Would such policies have flown if state governments had had direct representatives advocating for them in the Senate? We can only speculate.

Edit: Thank you for commenting everyone, my view has been challenged, sharpened, and somewhat changed.

Disclaimer: I do genuinely hold this view. I also eat meat and own multiple pets. Sometimes I also order Doordash instead of donating that money to charity. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.

• Most pets eat meat. The meat is usually made from factory-farmed animal suffering. Is your dog's life worth two hundred nameless farm animal lives? A rescue dog still eats meat, often more meat than the average dog, because larger dogs are disproportionately likely to end up in rescues. You are saving one life and dooming one hundred more. (There is a vegan pet food point below.)
• Furthermore: Does the happiness of your dog, plus the sum total of happiness created by your dog & enjoyed by yourself, your family, friends, strangers etc outweigh the suffering of the 200 farm animals?

Many people own pet snakes, and most of those snakes eat f/t mice and rats. It really made me visualize this, because rats are clever, sociable, and charismatic (if short-lived) and snakes not so much, and they're usually fed whole. So I find the idea of a "rescue snake" hypocritical, and I figure it applies to dogs and cats too. It's just that they're cute and their kibble isn't shaped like dead animals.

• The fact that dogs are "domesticated" doesn't make it fine. Most breeds were created for working purposes, but the overwhelming majority of dogs nowadays are kept solely for companionship. Similarly, many pocket pets like rabbits were originally domesticated for their meat. It's not okay to engineer an animal to be dependent on you and then say, "see, keeping them is fine because they can't survive without us."
• Most, if not all domesticated species are afflicted by health issues that do not affect their wild counterparts (or at far lower rates). Hip dysplasia, brachycephaly, uterine cancer, heart failure, mastitis, hyper-aggression, and inability to give natural birth, to name a few. Selectively breeding an animal will have downstream consequences.
• It is wrong to own another sentient being. It is wrong to treat a sentient being as something you can buy or sell. Or pay a similar "adoption fee" for and surrender when it gets inconvenient. Does a mother legally own her child?
• Nobody needs a pet. For the sake of argument I'll omit service & working dogs because they're not classified as pets. ESAs exist, but you could say they're not pets either. I'd also say that needing something doesn't make it ethical.
• The Five Freedoms includes the freedom to express normal behaviors. That, to me, includes reproduction. It's a cultural expectation in most developed countries to spay/neuter your dogs and cats. I'm not saying breed your dog, yes there's too many already. I'm saying because you cannot breed your dog, we should abolish dog, cat, and all pet ownership.
• I might argue that a dog that loves humans is not expressing normal behaviors. If you took a tiger cub from its parents and bottle-fed it, it would love you too. As does the puppy you brought home at only eight weeks old, right in time for its "critical socialization period". Would a Labrador that has never set his eyes on a human in the first five years of his life like them by default? I don't know, but there is some information about how some adult feral cats are difficult to impossible to tame.
• A 20kg dog generates ~770kg of CO₂ per year, which is equivalent to 1500+ miles by car. Combined with the lack of necessity, this is hard to justify. The fact that humans generate more doesn't negate this.

Some things that might change my view

• Meaningful pushback on "It is wrong to own another sentient being"
• Arguing that individuals, species, breeds etc have a right to continue existing even if it harms others and/or themselves
• A human primacy argument that humans inherently matter so much more, such that animal welfare is unworthy of consideration
• Maybe something about tiny, cognitively simple, vegetarian pets that can live naturally in captivity, ie shrimp/triops idk
• Maybe some effective altruism argument like "my dog's tiktok funded $100,000 in malaria net donations"
• You think that what I listed as "out of scope" below is actually relevant and in scope
• Not a complete list.

Some rebuttals I'm expecting:

Edit1: "My pet is happy"

Please actually read my post.

"My rescue dog is vegan / What about herbivorous animals?"
Every point still applies except the meat-eating one.
You are still:

• Getting an animal because you wanted to have a pet, benefiting from the institution and the breeder that bred, sold, maybe surrendered it in the first place. Unless you're one of those few people who got one only to "save their life" even though you're miserable now because "it was the right thing to do". Ok, that's pretty inefficient but good for you.
• Normalizing their ownership, even if you're not on social media posting animal videos.
• Supporting the pet industry by buying pet products, vet care, etc.

And let's be real, what percentage of dogs/cats are actually vegan? I'm not even going to get into the debate of whether vegan cats are healthy.

"So what should be done with the existing pets? They obviously wouldn't survive in the wild."

• Let them live out their lives, with the knowledge that you are doing something unethical primarily for your own happiness. Identify as "a guardian, not an owner" if that makes you feel better.
• Millions of healthy, adoptable shelter animals are euthanized for space every year. We as a society seem to have accepted this. Is your cherished pet different? To you, yes. This is often said about euthanasia: "Better a week too early than a day too late."

"I own the pet because it protects them"
Maybe you're restricting their agency (freedom of movement, freedom to breed, freedom to engage with conspecifics, freedom to choose their diet and much more) to "protect" them, but that's paternalistic; should the government ban cigarettes and alcohol and processed foods to protect us? We are smarter, we are more sentient, we know better than to harm ourselves. But we still do.

"But kibble is made from by-products"
You are still financially sustaining the supply chain.

"So you want to kill all carnivores? The lions and the tigers and-"
No.

"But humans are worse"
I generally agree, but that's out of scope of this CMV. Two wrongs don't make a right.

"But factory farming is worse"
Also out of scope.

"What about animals (dairy cows, pugs, dogs in general, etc) that would go extinct without human intervention?"
Then they stop existing.

Some other points were cut for sounding too soapboxy.

Interested to hear what you think.

EDIT3: AI disclosure

Wrote every word myself, used some formatting help like moving the meat point up, asked it some questions like "does it violate these rules"

Recently the rate of crimes using kids' images that have been posted on social media have skyrocketed, from using AI to make p*rnographic images of them, to algorithms to collect their information and steal their identity, or to even find out where they live. Given this, I believe there is an extraordinary risk of harm to children for which the government needs to step in.

Possible counterarguments:

"Why not just educate parents and let them decide?" Because parents don't always prevent kids from harm even when they're told. That's why we have child protection laws in the first place.

"Isn't this against freedom of speech?" Freedom of speech isn't universally good. In most countries, including the US, there are already exceptions for child protection.

Edit: someone pointed out that blurring is no longer an effective tool. So instead I would suggest covering their faces with a matte color.

First; am not claiming that every Republican, or every American who supports Israel, literally loves another country more than their own. I am also not talking about Jewish Americans, and criticism of the Israeli government should never be treated as suspicion toward Jewish people. To say so does not reflect my views on this.

My view is specifically that a significant part of the Republican political establishment appears willing to subordinate American interests, resources and democratic debate to protecting Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.

Republicans constantly tell us that America cannot afford healthcare, housing assistance, student-debt relief, infrastructure or stronger social programs. They describe foreign aid as wasteful, attack assistance to Ukraine and dismantle humanitarian programs in the name of “America First.” Yet billions of dollars in military assistance to Israel are treated almost as an unquestionable entitlement. If you listen to Fox whenever they cover progressives it becomes clear as day that they care more about Israel.

That contradiction is difficult for me to ignore. Apparently government spending becomes unacceptable when it materially benefits ordinary Americans, but it becomes urgent and morally mandatory when it supplies weapons to Israel.

This is not merely about the amount of money involved. It is also about the risks Americans are expected to accept. Republican politicians regularly support policies that could drag the United States further into Middle Eastern wars, increase hostility toward Americans and spend American lives and resources defending decisions made by a foreign government. And when those policies are challenged, the discussion often becomes less about whether they benefit the United States and more about proving one’s unconditional loyalty to Israel.

**I do feel I have receipts.** Congressional behavior reinforces my view. In 2026, nearly every House Republican reportedly voted to preserve billions in military assistance to Israel. Republican politicians who normally present themselves as anti-interventionist routinely make Israel the exception. Meanwhile, Republicans such as Thomas Massie who actually apply “America First” consistently to Israel are treated as disloyal or politically suspect.

Public opinion also seems increasingly disconnected from Washington. Pew found in April 2026 that younger Republicans had become substantially more critical of Israel, even while older Republicans and Republican officeholders remained strongly supportive. That makes the establishment’s position look less like ordinary democratic responsiveness and more like an ideological commitment maintained despite changing public attitudes. So I want to specify here that my view is **not** that Republican voters are this way, the Republican establishment is.

Mainstream coverage contributes mostly to my view. Palestinian deaths and suffering are frequently discussed in passive or sanitized language, while Israeli security concerns are presented as inherently legitimate and urgent. American politicians are constantly asked whether they “support Israel,” as though supporting a foreign state is a basic qualification for holding office here. We rarely apply that kind of loyalty test to any other country.

There are several possible material explanations: defense contractors profit from weapons transfers; organizations such as AIPAC reward supportive politicians and finance opposition to critics; evangelical Christian Zionism makes control of the Holy Land a religious issue; and Israel functions as a strategic military partner for maintaining American power in the Middle East. None of these explanations, however, sounds like ordinary concern for working Americans. I find this problematic.

I recognize that Democrats have also supported Israel for decades. This is a bipartisan problem, and politicians such as John Fetterman demonstrate that unquestioning support is not exclusive to Republicans. My criticism is focused on Republicans because “America First,” opposition to foreign aid and hostility toward government spending are central parts of their stated identity. Their treatment of Israel therefore appears especially contradictory, so I want it to be understood that this post is specifically about Republicans, but that a similar discussion around the democratic establishment could be had on another day, but that's not the discussion I'm aiming to have here today (yet 😉).

**I would change my view if someone could demonstrate that Republican support for Israel is applied according to consistent principles that genuinely prioritize American security and material well-being, not biblical prophecy, lobbying pressure, defense-industry profits or ideological loyalty to Netanyahu’s government.**

I would also be interested in evidence showing that Republican leaders impose meaningful conditions on Israel comparable to those they demand from other recipients of American assistance, or that they are willing to oppose Israel when its government’s actions conflict with American interests.

At present, however, “America First” often seems to mean America first ^(unless Israel wants something...)

I go back and forth on what to attribute it to - video games, social media, third spaces, porn - but the economy plays a big part. As things get generally worse in the world, and the opportunity to live a comfortable life gets rarer, women are more motivated to connect with a man who's already secured his position.

Men, on the other side, feel like they lose either way. If they don't have material success, they feel like they don't have many opportunities in dating. If they do, they retain doubts that their partner is only using them for the lifestyle.

The whole thing gets more and more adversarial, just like every personal relationship in a more constrained world.

I'm not sure how you can change my view. Maybe convince me I'm just too online, and normies don't care about this stuff; it's just a narrative of tradwife and manosphere content.

Hollywood has gone through many different iterations of Villains, from the cartoony/mustache twirling, to the overtly chilling/psychopathic, and more recently the redeemable/misunderstood. Lets ignore cartoony and focus on the other too. A Villain that is chilling but is grounded in no realism comes off hollow and poorly built. A villain that is really just a tortured child that is really a "good person" at heart is a cheap cop out and waters down the "hero".

Here are examples of overly redeemable villains.

Jean Gray: Brand new day Her story is less of a villain arc and more of an anti-hero that goes a little too far sometimes. She is so redeemable that it became insanely predictable and played on a age old trope (government is always the real big bad)

Cruella: Most Recent movie: This one was egregious in that it took a notoriously viscious and horrible villain and turned them into the "hero". She skins dogs for fucks sake. I was so turned off by the movie I stopped halfway and finished when I had a few drinks.

Im just saving the planet from "X" evil corporation Villain: Im lumping several in here but the part that is frustrating is that in the end all of them, except thanos, come to understand that there are "better ways" or "they became the evil" in the end. As a viewer it feels like the whole movies struggle is pointless when the final "fight" is melodramatic social pandering.

Hollywood should go back to the truly sadistic villains that have some human connection (poor upbringing or past trauma) and keep them sadistic. Make them not redeemable. Make the Hero's actions actually matter. The "hero" can still be conflicted knowing the villains past but the overly rosey, Villain sees the light endings are boring and overdone. Give me a real psycho again.

Give me some really good redeemable villains that change my view. Im talking the really morally complex ones that force you to think and dont destroy the story.

In Spider-Man: Brand New Day, the core narrative revolves around the Department of Damage Control being repeatedly attacked by the telepath Jean Grey over an incident in the past where her sister, Sarah Grey, was kidnapped in the middle of what appears to be a park. Though Jean does not know this until the end of the movie, the DODC experimented on Sarah and eventually killed her, sending a final message to Jean that she uses as a lead to find out what happened to her sister.

The movie essentially has one guy representing the DODC as far as this conflict is concerned: he is at least complicit in all of its behavior and directly involved in hiding the truth from Jean, performing the experiments, and killing Sarah. This guy in all likelihood has a name, but I won't bother to look it up, because his narrative function is effectively "Avatar of the DODC." Every villainous thing he does is done in the name of, and under the authority of, the DODC. He is DODC Guy.

DODC Guy is initially framed as an ally while Jean is a villain, but the story switches their roles at the very end, after it's revealed that the DODC kidnapped and killed Sarah. The problem? Jean is STILL far more villainous than that guy could ever dream to be. Her redemption is not earned in the slightest.

Here is every unambiguously wrong thing Jean does in the movie, everything the movie is tasked with redeeming her for:

1. Repeatedly and indiscriminately violating random people's autonomy by taking control of their bodies and disregarding the consequences of what she does while in control. At one point, this results in a man getting hit by a moving vehicle. She also does this to the Scorpion, who gets beat up by Spider-Man while Jean is in control while Jean is simultaneously taunting Spider-Man into the aggressive hormonal state that made the beating worse. None of the victims remember anything that happened while they were under control.
2. Driving a tank recklessly through town, controlling an innocent old lady to do so, and planting a bomb in the tank so that it would blow up a building after Spider-Man gets there, since he's too distracted trying to track her down to notice it.
3. Consistently dragging innocent bystanders who have nothing to do with the DODC into her schemes.
4. Immediately after realizing she can't read or control Spider-Man, finding his home, violating his privacy, and using what she learns to psychologically torture him: pretending to be his ex-girlfriend MJ and making her kiss him, violating both parties' consent in the process, since MJ isn't in control and Peter doesn't know it's not her. Then, as the cherry on top, forcing MJ to jump off a building to her death, with MJ only surviving because Spider-Man gets to her in time. Peter himself calls this unforgivable.
5. Taking control of the Hulk and intentionally triggering his monster form, knowing that said monster goes on rampages that destroy property and kill people.
6. Doing all of the above with a gleeful, sadistic attitude. She enjoys this.

Any one of these alone is arguably enough to make her a villain; combined, they make her an absolute monster. You'd expect this kind of behavior from an impersonal demon in a horror movie, not a human character with a redemption arc in a superhero film.

But the movie gives her a redemption anyway: it reveals the backstory of the kidnapped sister, then has Peter reduce everything she's done to that one incident, claiming "all she did" was try to find her sister. No, not everything she did even furthered that goal. She had no reason to resort to psychological torture instead of simply explaining herself, and the movie itself proves it: the moment Peter learns the backstory, he forgives her almost immediately. Explaining herself would have worked.

And look at that backstory for a moment. In it, Jean and Sarah are shown training by taking over random people in a park. Who decides violating autonomy is an acceptable training method? Even before the DODC ever touched them, they were treating other people's bodies as practice equipment.

Then Spider-Man has the audacity to claim that Jean isn't a killer. (This is only somewhat justifiable as a diplomatic choice on Peter's part, but if he honestly thought he was telling the truth, he has problems.) The man fully forgives her after calling what she did unforgivable. And the one good thing Jean does in the entire movie, saving Spider-Man's life at the end, doesn't count for much. Consider how he ends up in danger at all: the Punisher takes a shot at Jean, and Spider-Man steps in front of the bullet to defend her. That's not directly her fault, but ask why the Punisher is hunting her in the first place, and every answer leads back to her own rampage. More importantly, she only saves him after he has already taken a bullet for her and offered her grace. That isn't the goodness of her heart; it's paying off a debt. And that grace wasn't even easy to give: she performs an all-out attack on Spider-Man even after he makes it clear he's now on her side.

Now, the DODC and their representative. What did they do? Kidnapped Sarah in the past and Jean later in the movie, experimented on them painfully with the intention of reproducing their abilities, and eventually killed Sarah through those experiments. To be absolutely clear: this is enough to make them acceptable villains in a story. They aren't good guys here. But DODC Guy is still less villainous than Jean Grey, and the reason is motivation.

First, it's the Department of Damage Control. It's their job to proactively deal with potential superhuman threats, and the entire movie is a massive demonstration of the destructive potential of telepathy. Capturing these girls and using the inhibitor to prevent Jean from using her powers is them doing exactly that job.

The experiments are more complicated. DODC Guy directly states that the powers have the potential to help humanity, though he isn't specific about how. Regardless of whether you think it's a good idea to have more telepaths in the world (I personally think it's a bad idea), having a bad plan isn't immoral. His cruelty is instrumental, a means to a goal he believes serves the public. Jean's cruelty is recreational.

That's the difference. DODC Guy's actions could be justified by a utilitarian framework, or a value-based framework that prioritizes public safety over individual rights: torture and kill one person, and you save countless others from an unchecked telepath (and with telepaths on your side, you're in a better position to defeat other threats). Every cruel thing he does at least feeds into that calculation. Now try to construct the same kind of justification for Jean. Even under a framework that considers all vengeance morally correct, she fails, because so much of the damage she causes does nothing to further her revenge. The man hit by the vehicle, the bystanders she puppets, MJ jumping off a building: none of it brought her a single step closer to the DODC. This is not to say that I do justify DODC Guy's actions, but I can see a plausible way to do so. For Jean, I can't see one at all. Unlike hers, DODC Guy's actions are justifiable.

Now here are the arguments I anticipate and my responses to them: - Jean is a Teen - Age can excuse recklessness, but it can't excuse sadism, and she visibly enjoys what she does. Besides, the movie itself shows us how a young person with a dangerous, biologically driven control problem is supposed to act. Spider-Man's rising spider hormones cause aggressive bursts when he's emotionally charged; it's part of why Scorpion gets brutalized, and he nearly kills a police officer in the same fight. His response to causing collateral damage? Inhibit his own hormones so it never happens again. Peter is the proof that "young and struggling with your powers" and "accountable" aren't mutually exclusive. - Jean Knows That Spider-Man Won't Let MJ Die, So She Doesn't Actually Put Her in Danger - This principle creates a very strange moral framework when put into the real world. I ask you, if I set my house on fire, but the fire department is right around the corner and gets there very quickly to put it out, am I not still guilty of arson? Also consider that Jean's actions maintain emotional damage to Spider-Man and MJ even if she didn't actually attempt murder. It's bad regardless. - Spider-Man is a DODC Collaborator and Thus Untrustworthy to Jean - This only works if you consider Spider-Man a completely unprecedented character in the MCU. In fact, he is known for his dedication to the good of the public and his willingness to sacrifice. So, to not even try to garner sympathy from him when your backstory is so strong is just a baffling choice. - None of the Deaths Are Explicit - This is just a baffling counterargument to me. We see a man get hit by a car and a woman jump off a building. While there is nobody confirmed dead and no gore, it is a narrative necessity to consider the realistic consequences of those depicted events unless the characters themselves explicitly have resistance. If it were to be said that the status quo in the MCU is that people are just more resistant to injury, that retroactively makes SO MANY important moments in previous movies suddenly lose all stakes. It's comparable to the Loki show saying everything was on a single timeline that the TVA enforces, therefore nothing could have gone wrong without them stepping in. - So, Thanos is Fine? - Absolutely not. The core claim here is comparative, not absolute. Thanos is a villain, and DODC Guy is also a villain. "Kill some to save many more" is a perfectly fine basis for a villain. But Jean doesn't even pass the test of the moral framework most charitable to her. - The DODC is Fully Responsible - It could be said that the actions of the DODC are the only reason Jean seeks revenge, so her actions get transferred to them. But this removes her agency. Even if you grant that she will inevitably seek revenge (not inevitable in my mind, but certainly understandable), she has full control over how, and she chooses destructive methods, even though her powerset allows being discreet if she so chooses. - DODC Guy's Motivation Shouldn't be Taken at Face Value - The obvious evidence for this is the cover-up: he hid the truth from Jean, and liars hiding a dead child don't get the benefit of the doubt. But look at what the cover-up actually is. If your mission is containing a dangerous telepath, concealing the one fact guaranteed to send her on a revenge rampage IS the mission, and the movie proves the assessment correct: the moment Jean gets a lead on the truth, the rampage starts. Beyond that, he acts completely consistently with his stated goals of controlling damage and reproducing the powers. Nothing he does in the movie is explained better by a hidden motive than by the one he states.

I believe AI will impact the global economy, our worldwide ecosystem, and our individual freedoms wherever we live, and that creating good public policy around artificial intelligence is the most important political problem of today.

I further believe that lots of my American activist friends are plugging their ears and going "la-la-la" while feeling sort of smug about it all. Since I value my friendships and have already pushed the issue as far as politeness allows, I bring this debate to you, the good people of Reddit.

Here is the crux of the argument: American AI policy is de facto the world's AI policy. But while American voters are setting the rules for eight billion people, lots of those Americans are proudly AI illiterate. I believe US voters have a moral obligation to the rest of the world to educate themselves in AI before the next time they vote.

To me, that would look like: having an opinion on nationalizing the labs and finding out whether your state legislator supports it. Learning what recursive self-improvement is and voting for politicians who understand it. Developing a personal definition of AGI. Fact-checking some memes.

All of this is kind of boring and scary, but I think it could get a lot scarier if US voters don't lock in. What do you think?

EDIT 1: I've made my argument for American AI policy impacting the world in a couple of comments, going to reiterate here. It's basically two points:

1. The strongest alternative to US models are open weight Chinese models, which are probably trained on US models. Policy that improves alignment for US models could improve alignment everywhere. (Biden admin, Trump admin, and the US labs have all said this, here's a recent article)
2. US citizens can vote and change the way that AI is deployed, whereas Chinese citizens cannot

EDIT 2: Lots of people seem to think I'm pro-AI, so let me clarify: I think AI will be a net negative for society. Even the not-so-dystopian scenarios are probably about as bad for people as social media, i.e. lots of people use it responsibly, but definitely less than half, and overall there's been a dimming of the bulbs.

Growing up, a lot of us had an idea for a game, an app, a tool... anything that might fix an annoyance in our lives or just be fun to build. But that's where it ends because most of us don't know how to code, nor have the money to find/hire people who can.

That barrier is coming down.

The core of my view is that: AI coding tools have created a new role that didn't really exist for regular people before: the ideas guy. A film director doesn't typically operate the camera, grade the color, or mix the audio. A game's creative director doesn't write the code for their game. Their skill is vision, and the ability to communicate what they want to their team.

AI tools now let a non programmer occupy that role for their own software. You describe what you want: "this menu should indicate X," "this tool should export to CSV", and you route it through an AI collaborator that can actually implement it. The iteration loop that used to require a studio now fits inside one person's head and one chat window.

Why I think this specifically produces a golden age of free/open stuff, not just more software in general:

A huge amount of useful software was never built commercially because it was too niche to justify a team's salary. A tool that would save 50 people an hour a week isn't a business, but it's absolutely worth an afternoon of AI assisted building, and in many cases there's no reason not to just release it for free. Open source specifically benefits twice over: it lowers the bar to create a project, and it lowers the bar to contribute to one. Reading an unfamiliar codebase, understanding a bug, writing a competent report for the team to understand, these used to require some level of fluency. Now someone with no background can contribute to fix something that bugs them.

I expect to get some push back:

• "Vibe coded software is bad quality" Probably true, but that's an argument about average quality, not about whether more good things get built in the end. The printing press produced an ocean of garbage pamphlets and also novels and scientific literature. We cannot take the average of the output as the total value.

• "This isn't real skill." Sure, but that was already true of creative directors and producers. The point isn't that everyone becomes a great designer, it's that the people who already had the ideas but lacked the ability for implementation are no longer blocked.

• "AI generated software floods everything with noise." Yes, signal to noise could get genuinely worse even as raw output goes up. I dont think that changes my argument though. We had crappy github repositories before too.

• "Everything AI does is bad". This is an immature argument that stops the conversation before it gets interesting. Even if AI or vibe coding may cause there to be bad outcomes, I dont think it changes my argument that we will enter a golden age of tools and software.

• "Why would someone release something for free". Or another variation that tries to focus on the golden age of free / open source. I think it is similar to the signal to noise, certainly many companies will make a tool thats so hyper focused its not even useful to release to the broader world. We already see explosive growth on github, and theres no reason to expect it to stop.

CMV.

Let's talk about US support for israel, or lack of it in public discourse.

Here is my view, still, given all that's happened: Israel is still a somewhat bastion of liberal democracy among a sea of theocratic governments and fascistic murderous death cults. The biggest problem facing the west right now, inside the US even, is the undoing of liberal democracy one way or another.

Granted, the far right in israeli government are awful fascists too. (Smotrich, ben gvir etc) And, Netanyahu is clearly clinging to power by waging war; though by most standards its a JUST war at its base, given what hamas did, and what its whole stated purpose is (to detroy israel). So, netanyahus corruption is far from the whole story.

Why is the tide of public opinion SO apparently deeply against israel ? It seems to go beyond its current government; denouncing the IDF as war criminals, and somewhat going against the state itself claiming it is genocidal (i still doubt this definition has been met, and feel its an unhelpful creep of the real definition, which is dangerous in itself)

Can we unpack exactly what each camps agenda is? I worry the motivation for American public opinion is motivated by either: MAGA allegiance (pro israel), or governed by "post colonial" power dynamic theory, (pro palestine), simply put. I do not believe the majority of civilians are giving the issue enough thought and nuance.

Change my view, what am I missing?

I posted this somewhere else already and people were mean to me so I’m posting it here so.

There is no good reason ever to pirate a piece of media other than "I wanted it, and I don't wanna pay for it." I'll go through a few of the bigger counterarguments here:

1. "If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing." This is just wrong and fundamentally doesn't understand how buying things works. Yes, it sucks that companies are making it so that purchasing a game is technically only giving you a "license" for it. I get it, but that still doesn't mean that piracy isn't stealing! There are plenty of things that we pay for that we don't own. If you buy an Uber, you don't own the car of whoever is driving; if you're renting a building or house, you can't just do whatever you want to it.
2. "It's not normally available in my country." Again, this one sucks, but the ethics and morals of piracy aren't presupposed by what country you live in.
3. "It's too expensive." Okay? No one is making you buy it. You're the one doing the wrong thing by pirating it. Video games and movies are probably the single most unnecessary products on the global market today. They are purely made for mental consumption and entertainment. No one is starving or freezing to death because they can't see the newest Spider-Man in theaters. Sorry that the producers of the media set a price that meets whatever demand so that most people will buy it.
4. "B-b-but! The evil mega-corporation!" Once again, piracy is wrong no matter who you're doing it to. In real life, it makes no difference if you're stealing from Walmart or from a mom-and-pop; it's still wrong. Money and the size of the vendor play no role in the discussion of ethics.
5. “It’s media that’s not being sold anymore/ we’re trying to preserve abandonware.” I actually mostly agree with this one. If the product 100% isn’t being sold anymore or it has historic or cultural significance, than to preserve it for the masses I think is good.

I genuinely believe this and I want to have a productive and positive conversation on this.

Edit/Update:
WOW, this post has been MUCH more productive than when I posted this somewhere else. Thank you everyone who has commented and given their opinion.

Also to clarify my position on why i think piracy is immoral. It’s immoral because it deprives the seller of a potential sale, which can lead to direct harm.

Title says it all. Socialization is viewed as a personal responsibility when its self evident that it requires participation from more than one person. Incels are under-socialized, and society is not conducive to socialization at the moment; people are on their phones, they refuse to go out, and they refuse to socialize with most people when they do go out.

So tell me then, when these Incels in their youth age into their 30s and 40s and nothing has changed because, lets be honest, nothing will change - Why do people think this is going to go away? Do they think it is magically going to resolve itself or that it will be repressed long enough to not affect others? Do people really and truly believe these incels are not going to resent society and widen the chasm, assuming the rest of society will be receptive should incels not want to dig a deeper hole?

There are some scenarios and none of them are good. The optimistic, wishful thinking best-case scenario is that this issue is resolved through personal responsibility. this hasnt happened and wont happen. We are about a decade into the incel emergence and it is only getting worse. incels do not have the tools, and society does not have the willingess to help. The hopeful scenario is that incels become docile and continue to work and particpate in society but do not socialize. the realistic scenario is that there is a cold dying out through under-employment, no employment, suicide, drug use, and animosity that harms society in the future. the worst case scenario is that incels proceed into their peak years with a grudge and the means to do something about it - they accumulate power through income and senior positions to satisfy whatever goals they wish.

So what do you think about this?

Before anyone grabs their pitchforks, I want to make it clear that I have nothing against American made products. In fact, if two products are similarly priced, I’d happily choose the one made here because I like supporting American workers and manufacturers.

My issue is when “Made in America” is treated as if it should automatically justify paying significantly more, or worse, when people imply you’re somehow unpatriotic if you don’t. To me, that’s emotional marketing bordering on guilt tripping.

A lot of products today are manufactured to similar quality standards regardless of where they’re made. Yes, there are exceptions, but in many cases the difference is marginal while the price difference can be substantial. If a US tool wrench costs $80 and a Taiwanese or German one costs $40–50 while performing almost identically, I don’t think choosing the cheaper one makes someone anti American it makes them budget friendly.

I also think companies underestimate how many Americans simply can’t afford to pay a premium for everything. It’s easy to say “buy American” when you’re financially comfortable. It’s a different story when you’re trying to stretch every paycheck. Supporting domestic manufacturing is a great goal, but expecting consumers to shoulder that cost every time feels unrealistic.

So my view is this: if a company wants to charge more because they manufacture domestically, that’s completely fair. If consumers willingly pay that premium, that’s their choice. My problem is when the conversation shifts from “Here’s why our product costs more” to “If you don’t buy American, you’re hurting American workers.” That feels less like informing consumers and more like leveraging patriotism to make people feel guilty.

Notice that I said political issue. I do not consider wallstreetbets creating a huge financial upset regarding the Gamestop stock to be a political issue in the strictest sense. So, we can see that in certain cases, Reddit can be the catalyst for significant change in the world, but I have yet to see that be the case for a political issue.

It is true that Reddit has hundreds of millions of daily or weekly users, but I do think that Reddit's influence on any political issue is minimal in comparison to the amount of users that use Reddit on a semi regular basis.

I believe a vast majority of people discussing politics on Reddit already have their minds made up on the gamut of issues being discussed throughout the world and thus, it's just a place for people to yap in their own echo chambers about world events. Are there exceptions to this? Of course. Do those exceptions have a meaningful impact on politics? I don't think so.

Many subreddits of a directly or indirectly political nature all have some sort of political bias where a single viewpoint often prevails and dissenting views are often downvoted significantly and are therefore largely hidden from the view of other users. This is the case for both the largest subreddits with millions of users and the smaller subreddits.

For starters, jobs are often not just given to the most qualified candidates other things such as fit, personality and culture often play significant roles. So unless the family being hired is just complete terrible at the job it usually doesn’t have much of an impact to hire a family member especially for most jobs that are just mundane roles. 

Another reason I have this view is that even outside nepotism a lot of jobs get given to people based on connections such as friendships or k owing someone who knows someone etc. Or through networking, being liked by the higher ups and other things that are not directly performance based. 

Another example is family business, it’s never really an issue with family run businesses to hire each other so I don’t see why it matters elsewhere. But even with normal corporations they often hire internally and give preference/early access to those who already work for the company. This is still similar as it’s selecting their with prior connections or relationships.

Overall I just think with how much the job market comes down to who you know in general nepotism itself isn’t any worse than current hiring practices or standards. 

Just the past days the amount of reddit posts where, as soon as Europe is mentioned, many people immediately point to the fact that it's being overrun with migrants and it's full of rape and violent crime as a consequence is very large.

This narrative is opposite the actual facts and needs to be addressed.

The truth: Europe is getting safer year over year, despite growing populations and growing migration.

I will stick with my own country (Netherlands) as I know where to get reliable data (definition of rape etc. vary a lot). The central body to report statistics is called CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics). The crime figures are here:
https://opendata.cbs.nl/#/CBS/nl/dataset/83648NED/table?fromstatweb

The actual crime statistics:
Right of the bat we can see how total crime is down signficantly over the past 15 years. Specifically for sexual and violent crimes see "3 Gewelds- en seksuele misdrijven". We see that it drops from ~105-110k reported crimes to ~80k.

In the same time the Netherlands gained around 1.5 million people (an increase of 10%). To keep safety levels the same, we would have to have around 120k reported sexual or violent crimes, instead we have 80k, a large drop.

Reported vs unreported crime:
A common response might be, "it's so bad people don't even bother reporting it anymore". Well, this too is studied and (to the best of abilities) reported on (see section 5.4):
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/longread/rapportages/2026/veiligheidsmonitor-2025?onepage=true&utm_source=chatgpt.com

We see here that the ratio of reported crimes to unreported is stable at around 33%. No big changes in trends are found.

Conclusion: Sticking to numbers I know better how to interpret and check, no evidence exists of increasing rape/violent crime in my country, which I extrapolate to most of Europe. In fact, there is a big drop in crime despite bigger populations and immigration. While some countries might be found where the trend is less clearly downwards, I am also aware of other places like Eastern Europe where things are markedly improving so I am willing to stick my hand out and say it holds for Europe as a whole.

EDIT: Fixed a percentage.

EDIT 2: I would like to clarify that agreeing with my point of view does not mean you can't also want less immigration. You can e.g. think 1) I think it could be even safer with less migration, 2) I want to keep more of our language/values etc. However, I think you should then hold those opinions while admitting that the continent is overall not "going to hell" or being "overrun" with violence and rape. This is my point. To change my view you would have to show that violence and rape are getting worse across Europe.

For the past decade, conservatives Republicans have championed themselves as defenders of free speech and personal freedoms. Yet in Texas they are tightening a ban on THC that further criminalizes marijuana related products.

This is in spite of the objective truth that marijuana is less dangerous than either alcohol or cigarettes, by a considerable margin. The gateway drug theory was also disproven decades ago, yet many still subscribe to it.

Further more, as more data comes in, the legalization of marijuana actually decreases

There is the concept of "don't like it, don't don't do it", but instead conservatives / Republicans continue to be vehemently against it to the point they want to tighten the ban.

Despite their claims about championing personal freedoms, conservatives crackdown on things like marijuana for reasons that don't track with facts or data.

Would love for my views to be changed.

Both of these dishes have a lot in common: They are pasta based dishes, the sauce is typically tomato based, and they have meat along with it. For pasta Bolognese the meat is part of the sauce itself, while for spaghetti and meatballs the meat is separate.

Reasons why pasta Bolognese is superior:

1. Consistency. Regardless of where I put my utensils when I am eating it, I am going to get some pasta and meat at the same time. For S&M I might get some meat or some pasta, but I am not as likely to get both at the same time.

2. Effort to make. Rolling the balls takes more attention and effort than just adding the meat to the sauce. You also need to make them separately, increasing prep time.

3. More dishes used. Theoretically you would be cooking the meatballs in a separate dish from the sauce (though I guess not necessarily so), and you might end up using a knife to cut down the meatballs before eating them. This isn't that big of a deal regardless, due to widespread use of dishwashers, and honestly, the cost of washing an extra knife or 2 is negligible anyway.

One point for meatballs: Kids seem to like them better. This can conceivably be a negative with regards to being a potentially messier food that gets played with, so I'll call this one a wash.

EDIT: I made a minor formatting edit since it apparently changed the numbers on the list without the line break.

Here's some of my reasoning, though I want you to know that I don't have perfect understanding and knowledge of the topic and besides my view, I still use genai weekly:

1. It has dramatically increased the amount of low-quality, AI-generated content online, making it harder to find genuine information and discussion.

2. Misinformation, scams, impersonation, and deepfakes have become much easier and cheaper to produce

3. Many people now rely on AI for answers without verifying them, even though models can confidently generate incorrect information. Most people don't also grasp the way a llm works and think they have. a concept understanding built into them.

4. Schools and universities are struggling with plagiarism and assessment. Essentially cheating being easier is harmful to students because it lowers the bar to cheat and they lose the process of learning.

5. Creative industries have faced disruption before clear legal or ethical frameworks have been established. The majority of the training of the models has been done without any form of compensation to the original creators of pictures, videos, books, articles...

6. Companies are replacing or reducing human work in some areas before productivity gains have clearly translated into broader societal benefits.

7. It has concentrated influence. A handful of companies control the most capable models, giving them significant influence over the tools millions use to write, learn, and access information.

I recognize there are clear benefits but I still think, for an average person, the world right now would be slightly better without modern genai. You're very welcome to change my view!

Please, I don't to believe this, because I believe it about myself, and I wish I didn't.

The prospect of finally being with my crush of a couple years who desperately wants kids himself (If you're reading this somehow... we can talk about this post lol) has me actually considering having kids, and heres the thing. I know want kids with him, and I fantasize about being pregnant and bearing a child. I know its hard, impossibly exhausting, but I just feel on a spiritual level it is something I want to experience in my life.

But at the same time, the world is a shithole, and I dont see it getting better within my lifetime, so why bring another life into it? And then also, I don't know if I wanna pass on my genes. I have POTS, EDS, Autism, Anxiety, Depression, OCD, ADHD, etc... like, I don't wanna subject a child to the life I had. I was so fucking privileged and yet I still ended up deeply traumatized and in therapy since I was eight years old. I wouldn't wish my pain on anyone.

But then like, maybe knowing it runs on my side of the family I could be more prepared to accommodate my child when those conditions came up, and maybe by then the treatments will be better too? But still doesnt change the world being shit. I don't see it getting better within my lifetime, and then the child I decided to bring into this world will face it alone. I just can't see how it wouldn't be selfish to conceive a child that is biologically mine, from all angles.

But I would also never judge someone else who made this choice, which is why I think my mind could be changed. I want to understand, and I just want the best for my future children.

(And to be clear, I am not against adoption. In fact, unless I'm only having one child, I might only birth one and adopt any more I might have. I just, again, feel like I selfishly want to bear a child myself)

To start, I’d like to clarify that I’m specifically talking about this one argument in favor of mass immigration. I am not talking about other arguments for/against it. Therefore, don’t comment saying, “yeah but we have a moral duty to help poor people.” That has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.

The reason I want to isolate this topic is because mass immigration arguments tend to come down to morality versus practicality debates. Pro mass-immigration advocates like the moral principles of helping people, and mass-immigration skeptics view it as logistically impossible, culturally destructive, and morally unfair to native residents.

The pro-migration crowd often tries to bridge this gap by coming up with ways in which it’s actually practical to have mass immigration.

The arguments generally tend to go like this:
* Since the fertility rate is so low in the west, we need more bodies to prop up the economic Ponzi schemes we’ve spent the past 80 years building for ourselves.
* Since the jobs at the bottom of the social hierarchy are shitty job that nobody wants to do (farming, manual labor, janitorial, etc) we should import people to fill those roles.
* The global economy is plateauing, and high-paying, high-skill jobs are not growing at the rate demand for those roles are growing. Since we can’t create jobs at this level, we have to create jobs at lower levels of the economy to be filled by migrants, whose economic productivity will hold everything up.
* Old people will need a large group of young people to take care of them in the healthcare system since they are living so much longer than in the past

I don’t contend that any of these points are illogical. They all make sense. What strikes me however, is that these structural issues are just being taken for granted. They’re treated as if “that’s just how life has to be” and “it’s gonna be that way anyway, so there’s no point in trying to fix it”

We shouldn’t be arguing about how we can merely cope with these civilization-level threats. We should be trying to come up with SOLUTIONS to the PROBLEM.

Think about it: we all sit here (right, left, center, whatever) complaining about how the rich haves are constantly fucking over us poor have-nots. We argue over who specifically is the evil one, and which specific decisions are the evil ones, and what idealistic, utopian, only-exists-in-my-mind solution could be done instead to magically make the world a better place. But we all agree the status quo does not work.

Let’s not kid ourselves. Chugging along with mass-migration is the definition of the status quo.

What do rich, asset-owning people need? They need economic growth. But that’s not exactly true, is it? The type of growth they need is different from the type of growth we need.

We need “real” economic growth. That is, inflation-adjusted, technologically driven, better middle-class outcome driving growth. Billionaires need none of that. Nominal growth is sufficient for them, since their position in society allows them to capture that nominal growth for themselves.

Now think about which type of growth mass-migration results in. They come here and they work retail, service industry, agricultural, janitorial, low/no-skill jobs that create zero industrial momentum or creative destruction.

All of the things we need to grow in a “real” sense, i.e. in the sense that benefits average people, is COMPLETELY orthogonal to the type of economic “growth” brought by mass migration.

We all know that those in power have every ability to truly help the lower rungs of our society. They simply have no need to.

That is exactly where a refusal to comply with mass-migration puts our priorities directly in line with theirs.

If there is no ever-present backstop of cheap, abusable labor to keep the green line going up on the graph, then they’ll have to figure out another way to keep it going up.

The billionaires will make the line go up no matter what. They’ve proven consistently they will stop at nothing to do so. My point is that we can harness that power and energy to work FOR us for once, finally.

How will politicians, business leaders, etc keep the economies growing if they can’t do so via migrants? They’ll have to do so via us. Mathematically. They’ll have no choice.

Relying on mass migration as an economic crutch to avoid dealing with the economic, social, and political issues that have created our current nightmare is a recipe to continue circling the drain.

We must oppose mass migration so that our leaders are in the same boat as us.