Mike Bloomberg recently dropped out of the 2020 Presidential race after spending over $500 million dollars of his own money on his campaign. Even with this loss, he is still worth over $55 billion dollars.

I believe that this effortless spending on Bloombergs part showcases the reality that is wealth inequality between the ultra rich and working class. While I do not believe the rich should give up their fortunes, I do believe that any arguments against taxing them more is simply propaganda from those who hold the wealth and higher power at this point.

Certain media outlets claim that taxing the super wealthy is unfair and would be detrimental to those below them due to "trickle down" effects. There is also rhetoric that many self made billionaires worked hard for their fortunes, and that if we as Americans work hard, we might be rich ourselves one day.

I believe that moving forward, we should push for much higher taxes on those earning/worth more than 1 billion USD. If the money Bloomberg spent on his campaign went to actual communities that need funding, actual change could have been possible. Social programs could benefit greatly from these funds, and maybe we could afford to better fund national programs such as healthcare or family leave.

Kanye West is a shill for president Trump and running to syphon off young voters from voting for Biden. First, he may have an excentric take on reality but can't honestly believe that he has a chance of winning. Second, if he truly wanted to be president, he would have started his campaign last year when he still had a chance to get on state ballots. Third, he has been an avid defender of Trump and the MAGA agenda. Just from reviewing other threads on reddit, there are people willing to vote for him. Generally speaking, the fan base of artists like Kanye skews young and culturally diverse, which are both not likely to vote for Trump.

There are plenty of other reasons you can say that Kanye is running, but unless you say how my view is flawed I will only consider those reasons as supplemental to the above concept and not as a replacement for.

EDIT: Interesting.... https://www.thedailybeast.com/billionaire-kanye-wests-company-yeezy-llc-gets-multimillion-dollar-ppp-loan-from-trump-admin?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds

I used to think I was against a national healthcare system until after I got out of the army. Granted the VA isn't always great necessarily, but it feels fantastic to walk out of the hospital after an appointment without ever seeing a cash register when it would have cost me potentially thousands of dollars otherwise. It's something that I don't think just veterans should be able to experience.

Both Canada and the UK seem to overwhelmingly love their public healthcare. I dated a Canadian woman for two years who was probably more on the conservative side for Canada, and she could absolutely not understand how Americans allow ourselves to go broke paying for treatment.

The more wealthy opponents might continue to oppose it, because they can afford healthcare out of pocket if they need to. However, I'm referring to the middle class and under who simply cannot afford huge medical bills and yet continue to oppose a public system.

Edit: This took off very quickly and I'll reply as I can and eventually (likely) start awarding deltas. The comments are flying in SO fast though lol. Please be patient.

I write this because I am tired of the wild goose chase that is finding examples of his success. Anything surrounding Donald Trump is shrouded in divisive language and biased opinions. Liberals will have you believe he has done nothing, while conservatives will tout his unlimited success. I must be missing it, because any time I try to research into a topic I get lost in opinion and bias.

I am completely willing to hear and review and accept any examples of success or lasting positive change that has come about as a direct result of Trumps presidency. In fact I want to! It can’t be ALL bad.

Edit1: a lot of responses here. I need to actually read the sources for the claims everyone’s making, so it may take a while for me to respond to each comment, but I will try. I’ll take this chance to remind everyone it’s possible to have civil discourse about even the most divisive topics, even the infamous DJT. Thanks all for the responses.

Edit2: double thanks to those who are responding and engaging one another civilly, and awarding the post. I think it’s important to realize how biased we can become despite the facts. The good things don’t necessarily outweigh the bad, so maybe there’s a counter-post to be made regarding all of the harm DJT has done as well. Every point has a counter point, so take anything you hear with the ole’ grain of salt. I urge everyone to educate themselves and vote in the upcoming election for the candidate they believe in - and don’t let politics negatively impact your happiness. It’s just like any other thing, and can be harmful in high doses.

Edit3: definitely had my view changed. I wanted examples of positives and I received examples with sources. I appreciate everyone’s responses, and feel better about having informed conversation about DJT’s presidency. Still have a lot to read and respond to!

From what I know, Christ was essentially a radical leftist. He was all about helping and loving the poor, hungry, disabled, outcast. He would feed 10 people just in case one was going hungry. He flipped a table when banks were trying to take advantage of people. He was anti-capitalist and pro social responsibility to support, love and respect all members of society. He was, based on location and era, probably a person of color. He would not stand for discrimination. He would overthrow an institution that treated people like crap.

On the other hand, conservatives are all about greed. They are not willing to help people in need (through governmental means) because they “didn’t earn it” and it’s “my tax dollars”. They are very pro-capitalism, and would let 10 people go hungry because one might not actually need the help. They do not believe in social responsibility, instead they prioritize the individual. Very dog eat dog world to them. And, while there are conservatives of color, in America most conservatives are at least a little bit racist (intentionally or not) because most do not recognize how racism can be institutional and generational. They think everyone has the same opportunities and you can just magically work your way out of poverty.

Christ would be a radical leftist and conservatism is about as far as you can get from being Christ-like in politics. The Bible says nothing about abortion (it actually basically only says if someone makes a pregnant woman lose her baby, they have to pay the husband). It does not say homosexuality is sin, just that a man should not lie with a boy (basically, anti pedophilia) based on new translations not run through the filter of King James. Other arguments are based on Old Testament, which is not what Christianity focuses on. Jesus said forget that, listen to me (enter Christianity). Essentially all conservative arguments using the Bible are shaky at best. And if you just look at the overall message of Jesus, he would disagree with conservatives on almost everything.

EDIT: Wow, this is blowing up. I tried to respond to a lot of people. I tried to keep my post open (saying left instead of Democrat, saying Christian instead of Baptist or Protestant) to encourage more discussion on the differences between subgroups. It was not my intent to lump groups together.

Of course I am not the #1 most educated person in the world on these issues. I posted my opinion, which as a human, is of course flawed and even sometimes uninformed. I appreciate everyone who commented kindly, even if it was in disagreement.

I think this is a really interesting discussion and I genuinely enjoy hearing all the points of view. I’m trying to be more open minded about how conservative Christians can have the views they have, as from my irreligious upbringing, it seemed contradictory. I’ve learned a lot today!

I still think some conservatives do not live or operate in a Christ-like manner and yet thump the Bible to make political points, which is frustrating and the original inspiration for this point. However I now understand that that is not ALWAYS the case.

Here’s a picture of someone living in a slum. Now here’s a picture of them 10 years later going to Harvard. How heartwarming. If only every one of those lazy, dirty shits the world over would be more like him. No, more like us. You see, yes I didn’t come from quite that background - but dammit I’ve worked very hard for what I’ve achieved. That’s the difference between scum and me. I pulled myself up by my bootstraps. I’ve overcome many setbacks in my life. And instead of letting them defeat me, I’ve used my wits, my grit and the loving support from my friends and family (who I admit are doing ok and are able to help me - but only because they worked hard). I love those Reddit posts. They stop me feeling guilty about other people’s situations. Because it’ll all work out for those who ‘Work hard and Never give up’ and the rest are lazy subhuman scum who don’t deserve any better.

Edit: 23/10/2020 12:35 GMT: Thanks to u/subduedReality for this video on work, talent and luck

In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products.

But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors.

We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center.

We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize.

Change my view.

I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups.

This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair.

I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives.

Another thing we can do is stop with this "both sides" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard?

At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.

I just want to start by saying this might be the only instance of something that I would actually, unironically call "virtue signaling" -- a term I usually disdain and find dismissive of social progress. But in this case, that's exactly what I think it is.

"Folks" is an inclusive word. It means "people." It is inherently gender neutral. It is perhaps one of the few English words to address a group of people that is totally inclusive and innocuous. In a time when we are critically evaluating the inclusiveness of language, one would think we're lucky to have a word as neutral and applicable as "folks."

But apparently, people are intent on spelling it "folx," with the "x" indicating inclusiveness. But adding a trendy letter to a word doesn't make the word more inclusive if the word was already inclusive. "Folks" didn't exclude people who were non-binary (for instance), because it inherently means "people" -- so unless you think non-binary folx aren't people, then they were already included and accepted in that term.

I understand there is value in making sure that language is obviously inclusive when speaking to people who may otherwise feel excluded. So, I understand there may be some value in taking a word that is potentially vague in its inclusiveness, and tweaking it in a way that is more inclusive. As an example, I understand the intent and value in the term "latinx" (which could be its own discussion, but I'm just citing it as a contrary example here). Regardless of someone's feelings on "latinos/latinas," "latinx" is a substantive change that would, in theory, have more inclusiveness for those who might feel othered by the gendered terms.

But "folx" doesn't add or change anything on a substantive level. It is purely a spelling change in a situation where the original spelling was not problematic or exclusive. It uses the letter "x" as a reference to the fact that "x" has become a signifier of inclusiveness, thereby showing that the user supports inclusiveness. But if people wouldn't have felt excluded otherwise, then signifying this is purely for the user's own ego -- to say, "Look at what type of person I am; you should feel accepted by me." Signaling that you're a good person in a way that doesn't change anything else or help your audience (since there wasn't a problem to begin with) is, by definition, virtue signaling.

The only conceivable reason I see for the rally behind "folx" is the historical usage of "volk" in Germany, when Nazi Germany referred to "the people" as part of their nationalist identity. But 1) that's a different word in a different language which carries none of that baggage in English-speaking cultures; 2) it's a such a common, generally applicable word that its inclusion within political rhetoric shouldn't forever change the world itself, especially given its common and unproblematic usage for decades since then; and 3) this feels like a shoe-horned, insincere argument that someone might raise as a way to retroactively inject purpose into what is, in actuality, their virtue signaling. And if you were previously unfamiliar with this argument from German history, then that underscores my point about how inconsequential it is to Western English-speaking society.

People who spell it as "folx" are not mitigating any harm by doing so, and are therefore doing it purely for their own sense of virtue. CMV.

Addendum: I'm not arguing for anyone to stop using this word. I'm not saying this word is harmful. I'm not trying to police anyone's language. I'm saying the word's spelling is self-serving and unhelpful relative to other attempts at inclusive language.

Addendums: By far the most common response is an acknowledgement that "folks" is inclusive, but also that "folx" is a way to signal that the user is an accepting person. I don't see how this isn't, by definition, virtue signaling.

Addendum 3: I'm not making a claim of how widespread this is, nor a value judgment of how widespread it should be, but I promise this is a term that is used among some people. Stating that you've never seen this used doesn't contribute to the discussion, and claiming that I'm making this up is obnoxious.

Addendum Resurrection: Read the sidebar rules. Top level comments are to challenge the view and engage in honest discussion. If you're just dropping in from the front page to leave a snarky comment about how you hate liberals, you're getting reported 2 times over. Thanx.

Addendum vs. Editor: Read my first few sentences. I used the term "virtue signaling" very purposefully. If you want to rant about everything you perceive to be virtue signaling, or tell me that you didn't read this post because it says virtue signaling, your viewpoint is too extreme/reductionist.

Addendum vs. Editor, Requiem: The mods must hate me for the amount of rule 1 & 3 reports I've submitted.

Edit: Ok, this has been fun and some great conversation, but I am beginning to feel like a one-man army trying to defend the gates of Sparta.

I have changed my mind for three reasons.

1. Test-taking ability is not necessarily an indication of one's ability to run the office of the president.

2. He who creates the questions dictates the barrier for entry.

3. Freedom of speech is a slippery slope, and even though announcing one's intent to run for president can and will continue to be abused, you can't knock out one brick and expect the wall to remain intact. Therefore, I am hereby announcing my bid to run as VP with Kim Kardashian.

I still believe standardized cognitive testing should be administered. This could be automated, perhaps using open-source N-Back software or various standardized cognitive testing designed to screen for early cognitive decline.

Regardless of who you like, this is a democracy, so register to vote and get those ballots in by November!

---- Original Post ----

The office of the President of the United States is being used as a tool to boost social media presence, to syphon votes, and to simply sell products. This is an abuse of the office of the presidency and should be illegal, especially if someone has zero intent on running or winning.

To limit entry into this field, and to limit the abuse of power that has been recently demonstrated by Kanye West, it should be illegal to announce you are running for president unless you undergo a comprehensive set of exams that show you have at least a basic mental competency to run the United States of America.

The results of these exams should be available to everyone as a pass/fail, though the exact scores should be held secret so as not to be used to favor one candidate with a higher score over another. They should cover cognitive, physical, as well as brain scans using MRI, EEG, etc.

While these tests may not completely stop such abuse, they would make it far more difficult for any celebrity to simply announce to their millions of Twitter followers that they are running for president. More importantly, voters could be assured that any candidate running for president has passed a basic competency exam, which would prevent candidates from using perceived cognitive decline as a political weapon.

In Canada, if you are a nurse and openly promote antivaccination views, you can lose your license.

I think that should be the case in the US (and the world, ideally).

If you are antivax, I believe that shows an unacceptable level of ignorance, inability to critically think and disregard for the actual science of medical treatment, if you still want to be a physician or nurse (or NP or PA or RT etc.) (And I believe this also should include mandatory compliance with all vaccines currently recommended by the medical science at the time.)

Just by merit of having a license, you are in the position to be able to influence others, especially young families who are looking for an authority to tell them how to be good parents. Being antivax is in direct contraction to everything we are taught in school (and practice) about how the human body works.

When I was a new mother I was "vaccine hesitant". I was not a nurse or have any medical education at the time, I was a younger mother at 23 with a premature child and not a lot of peers for support. I was online a lot from when I was on bedrest and I got a lot of support there. And a lot of misinformation. I had a BA, with basic science stuff, but nothing more My children received most vaccines (I didn't do hep B then I don't think) but I spread them out over a long period. I didn't think vaccines caused autism exactly, but maybe they triggered something, or that the risks were higher for complications and just not sure these were really in his best interest - and I thought "natural immunity" was better. There were nurses who seemed hesitant too, and Dr. Sears even had an alternate schedule and it seemed like maybe something wasn't perfect with vaccines then. My doctor just went along with it, probably thinking it was better than me not vaccinating at all and if she pushed, I would go that way.

Then I went back to school after I had my second.

As I learned more in-depth about how the body and immune system worked, as I got better at critically thinking and learned how to evaluate research papers, I realized just how dumb my views were. I made sure my kids got caught up with everything they hadn't had yet (hep B and chicken pox) Once I understood it well, everything I was reading that made me hesitant now made me realize how flimsy all those justifications were. They are like the dihydrogen monoxide type pages extolling the dangers of water. Or a three year old trying to explain how the body works. It's laughable wrong and at some level also hard to know where to start to contradict - there's just so much that is bad, how far back in disordered thinking do you really need to go?

Now, I'm all about the vaccinations - with covid, I was very unsure whether they'd be able to make a safe one, but once the research came out, evaluated by other experts, then I'm on board 1000000%. I got my pfizer three days after it came out in the US.

I say all this to demonstrate the potential influence of medical professionals on parents (which is when many people become antivax) and they have a professional duty to do no harm, and ignoring science about vaccines does harm. There are lots of hesitant parents that might be like I was, still reachable in reality, and having medical professionals say any of it gives it a lot of weight. If you don't want to believe in medicine, that's fine, you don't get a license to practice it. (or associated licenses) People are not entitled to their professional licenses. I think it should include quackery too while we're at it, but antivax is a good place to start.

tldr:

Health care professionals with licenses should lose them if they openly promote antivax views. It shows either a grotesque lack of critical thinking, lack of understanding of the body, lack of ability to evaluate research, which is not compatible with a license, or they are having mental health issues and have fallen into conspiracy land from there. Either way, those are not people who should be able to speak to patients from a position of authority.

I couldn't find holes in my logic, but I'm biased as a licensed professional, so I open it to reddit to find the flaws I couldn't :)

edited to add, it's time for bed for me, thank you for the discussion.

And please get vaccinated with all recommended vaccines for your individual health situation. :)

I saw a video today of President Trump giving some money at church in Las Vegas. The entire article was about how he fanned the money out in a showy display.

Full disclosure: I think President Trump is an embarassment and a destructive force who NEEDS to be voted out of office for the sake of the USA and the world at large. But I watched the video and thought: he did nothing wrong here. He MIGHT have intended to "show off" the ~$60 he put in the plate...but he could have just been checking how much was in his hand or fidgeting as anyone else would do. He certainly could afford to give more, but many people don't give as much money as normal (or any at all--which is fine!) when they are visiting a church. Nothing he did in the video was objectionable, and yet the article took a bunch of shots at him based on how he held his money, how little he gave, what may have been going on in his mind--a bunch of cheap shots, but more importantly, all regarding something pretty insignificant.

The problem with this kind of cheap piling on (and I could give a hundred examples) is that it's unfair and mean, and so it very much justifies the President's supporters pointing out unfair treatment, which leads to further entrenching their support of him. Furthermore, it dilutes out and de-emphasizes all of his horrible behavior, lapses in ethics, and the terrible amount of REAL damage he's done.

If we really want to change minds and vote him out of office--instead of having another Democrat popular vote win and a "too close to call" electoral college victory (for one side or the other)--we should focus on the much more significant and real damage he has done. This would help by (1) enabling much broader agreement on a set of facts; (2) avoid causing supporters of the President to dig in defensively for no reason; (3) focus on the real issues.

Off-duty cops are just regular people who are not at work. Whatever actions they do should be viewed legally as a civilian doing them. There is no reason why the legal protections of being a cop should extend to their activities off duty actions. If someone is in danger/breaking the law, they should intervene as a civilian, meaning they have no legal responsibility to provide aid or execute the law. If an off-duty cop kills someone, it should be treated as if that person where a civilian who killed someone. I am not arguing whether or not the actions of off duty cops are right or wrong, just that those actions are not special and should face the same legal scrutiny as any other civilian.

Edit to add: "The St. Louis Metropolitan Department explained the work of its unnamed officer this way in a statement: “To clarify, secondary employment allows officers to work security in uniform and carry their department-issued weapons. The officer, while not on duty for the Police Department, still has the same responsibilities and power to affect arrest and the officer operates in the capacity as a St. Louis Police Officer."

I also acknowledge that on-duty cops are civilians. I just needed a word to make the distinction.

I imagine most rioters would justify their outrage by saying they're tired of unarmed men, especially black men, being killed by police at an alarming rate. But this is not supported by the data. In fact, the opposite is true.

The number of deadly police shootings of unarmed people has generally declined since 2015 even as the tally of fatal shootings by law enforcement is on pace to hit nearly 1,000 for the fourth year in a row, according to data gathered by The Washington Post.

And behold, in 2019, we have even fewer unarmed shootings than 2018, when this article was published. Justified police killings are staying steady, which is not ideal, but they are not increasing.

So why the widespread misperception of unarmed shootings getting worse?

In 2016, Will Smith said, "Racism is not getting worse. It's getting filmed."

There's been some confusion about what he meant. Some say he meant it's bringing racism to the forefront of national attention. Not so.

"Smith said he disagrees with people who think that the situation has gotten progressively worse."

I'm actually not even convinced that it's racism that we're seeing when a cop does something awful to a black suspect. That would be a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.

After all, white cops are no more likely to shoot black suspects than black cops.

The race of a police officer did not predict the race of the citizen shot. In other words, black officers were just as likely to shoot black citizens as white officers were.

I guess you could say black cops are racist against other black men but that seems unlikely. I'm not convinced of that, and it's impossible to prove either way.

So anyway, there's a concept in Sociology called Mean World Syndrome.

Mean world syndrome is a cognitive bias where people perceive the world to be more dangerous than it actually is due to long-term, moderate to heavy exposure to violence-related content on mass media.Mean world syndrome asserts that viewers who are exposed to violence-related content can experience increased fear, anxiety, pessimism and heightened state of alert in response to perceived threats. This is because media (namely television) consumed by viewers has the power to directly influence and inform their attitudes, beliefs and opinions about the world.

This concept is supported by the data I shared above about how unarmed shootings have actually decreased and are continuing to decrease.

I think even vehement anti-police advocates would have to concede that this is a very real and very salient problem in mass media. After all, the phrase "If it bleeds it leads" has been around in journalism for decades.

This is what has helped inspired so much anti-police hatred. The media is very skilled at manipulating the populace into fear and distrust.

If you don't believe me just look at the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers by a man who was radicalized by the media and/or black lives matter.

On July 7, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson ambushed and fired upon a group of police officers in Dallas, Texas, killing five officers and injuring nine others. Two civilians were also wounded. Johnson was an Army Reserve Afghan War veteran and was angry over police shootings of black men and stated that he wanted to kill white people, especially white police officers. The shooting happened at the end of a protest against the police killings of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, which had occurred in the preceding days.

I see this as one of the most egregious examples of Mean World Syndrome.

So what would change my view is a perspective that suggests that the public's extreme reaction to this most recent police killing is not actually Mean World Syndrome, but some other reason that has a rational basis.

I believe Republicans will hate Biden no matter what. Even if he doesn't take away their guns, even if he establishes rural broadband (which would disproportionately help them), even if he implements universal healthcare without raising taxes on the middle/lower class,,... Republicans will find something to hate about him.

The reason I believe this is because it seems like Trump supporters are genuinely part of a cult. Even when Trump does something against their own principles, like a bum stock ban or raising the deficit significantly for example, he doesn't face even an iota of criticism from his own side. Recently, Trump supporters are even calling to abandon Fox News and move on to more right-wing networks like OAN, or get Trump and Tucker Carlson their own shows. This is all because Fox News refuses to irresponsibly platform election disinformation. It seems like they never cared about being politically informed or wanting what's best for this country, they just want to be fed what they want to hear, and they just want their side to win and trigger the other side.

The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple.

Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.

Historically, Western women's worth was tied to their beauty, because according to society their role inife was to attract a good man, marry him and make him happy. The problem is that even after women started being recognized as equal to men and entered the workforce, their beauty continued to be unjustly tied to their personal worth in a way that's just not true for men. (Consider the much harsher standards of physical appearance that female politicians have to endure.)

The modern body positivity movement reacted to this problem by trying to expand the definition of beautiful, and telling everyone that they are attractive. Instead, it should have told women "your attractiveness is irrelevant, your intelligence, courage, and skill are what matter." I don't worry about my appearance too much besides dating, health, and basic hygeine, and I think my life is better off for it.

Expanding the definition of beautiful isn't wrong, but it seems impossible to me. I get that beauty standards are subjective and have changed before, but that evolution has always been organic. I don't think Instagram influencers and activists are going to change people's perceptions of what bodies are beautiful, but they could make a difference by admitting that physical beauty is a worthless goal.

Now you might be thinking, "body positivity isn't about changing cultural expectations, it's about helping individuals accept themselves". But I'd argue that self-worth is always based, at least to a point, on social feedback. Humans are social creatures, and I am never going to be able to think of myself as attractive if other people (especially the ones I'm attracted to) don't treat me that way.

How can you possibly convince someone who's overweight and struggling to find a date that they are just as attractive as a supermodel, when the actions of the people around them tell them the exact opposite? You can't. What you can tell them is this: You are not as attractive as a supermodel, but you have other good qualities.

To sum up, body positivity asserts that everyone is equally beautiful in tbeir own way, but the truth is that some people are more attractive than others, and that's okay, because your physical beauty doesn't define you.

Edit: To clarify, I'm not against body positivity in general. What I'm trying to say is that it is less effective that it could be, and it would be better to acknowledge that attractiveness is pretty much worthless. I'm arguing against the strategy, not the desired outcome.

Edit 2: When I say attractiveness is worthless, I mean that it is worthless to society, not to the attractive person. Obviously being seen as attractive comes with personal advantages, but (a) telling people they are attractive does not confer those advantages unless everyone believes you and (b) it does not benefit other people in the same way that intelligence, courage, kindness or countless other virtues do.

Edit 3: Thank you to everyone who commented, I'm going to bed and I'll see how many comments I can get to in the morning.

So, the main thing I see when the topic of a living wage comes up is that companies will just jack up the prices to compensate for the lost revenue, which then negates any increase in wages.

However, a minimum wage that is directly linked to what the living wage is for the area that the business is located would make it so if companies drive the prices up, then the cost of living goes up, then the living wage goes up and so will what the workers are paid. This way companies can't just jack up the prices, because doing so will mean that they need to pay their workers even more. Keeping prices lower will be in their best interest

Edit: Reddit is being weird and not letting me see all comments, and not letting me reply so I'll get to the replies when I can!

Edit 2: I see a lot of "what about small businesses" comments. If a business needs to exploit its workers in order to survive, then it should not survive.

Edit 3: Reddit is still being weird and won't let me see the majority of the comments so if I don't reply, I apologize!

If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.

I’ll start off by saying I don’t mean this for major situations where someone needs to be let go right away. If someone is stealing, obviously you don’t need to give them a two week notice.

So to my point.

They always say how it’s the “professional” thing to do and you “don’t want to burn bridges” when leaving a job. They say you should give the two week notice and leave on good terms. Or that you should be as honest with your employers and give as much heads up as possible, so they can properly prepare for your replacement. I know people who’s employers have even asked for more than the two weeks so that they can train someone new.

While I don’t disagree with many of this, and do think it is the professional thing to do, I think there is some hypocrisy with this.

1. Your employers needs time to prepare for your departure. But if they want to let you go they can fire you on the spot, leaving you scrambling for a job.

2. The employer can ask you to stay a bit longer if possible to train someone, but you don’t really get the chance to ask for a courtesy two weeks.

3. It puts the importance of a company over the employee. It’s saying that employee should be held to a higher standard than an employer. As an employee you should be looking out for the better of this company, and be a “team player”.

Sometimes there are situations where giving a two week notice isn’t needed. If you have a terrible employer who you don’t think treats you fairly, why do you need the two week notice? If you feel unappreciated and disrespected, why is it rude to not give a notice?

If that’s the case then why do people not say the same about employers firing people with no notice? How come that’s not rude and unprofessional? Why is that seen as a business move, but giving no notice of quitting is seen as unprofessional?

If we’re holding employees to a standard, we should hold companies to the same standards.

EDIT: Thank you for all the responses, I didn't think this would get this large. Clearly, I can't respond to 800 plus comments. I understand everyone's comments regarding safety and that's a valid point. Just to be clear I am not in favor of terminating an employee that you think will cause harm, and giving them two weeks to continue working. I think a severance is fair, as others have mentioned it is how it is in their country. However I agree with the safety issue and why you wouldn't give the notice. I was more so arguing that if you expect a notice, you need to give something similar in return.

I think this is unambiguous if the person is actively making the world a worse place. In that case, their death makes the world a better place, and that's something to celebrate.

I can see some argument that if they've done bad things in the past, but are now just living a private life, death shouldn't be celebrated. But even then, I think it's fine to take some joy in the death of someone who could be considered evil.

Consider a serial killer who is caught and convicted after a full confession. Even if they've apologized, their eventual death may be the only "closure" that a victims family can get.

Edit 1: Many people are arguing over how to define if someone is evil. That's not what I'm asking. It doesn't matter who the person is. Imagine we both strongly agree that this dead person is evil. Convince me I'm wrong from that perspective.

You can also convince me that no one is ever evil enough to celebrate their death, but the "hard" version of that argument must pass the Hitler test. Ie, you'd have to argue that even Hitler's death doesn't deserve celebration.

Edit 2: To clarify, if your argument revolves around claiming that my judgment of evil is subjective, you're not going to convince me of anything. Of course it's subjective!

Edit 3: A lot of people are misquoting or incorrectly attributing quotes about reading obituaries with pleasure. The original is from Clarence Darrow.

All men have an emotion to kill; when they strongly dislike some one they involuntarily wish he was dead. I have never killed any one, but I have read some obituary notices with great satisfaction.

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/mark-twain-didnt-say-thing-about-obituaries/350238/

Recently saw an issue going around social media where and airport worker shared the ticket for a child named "Abcde" and her mother went feral about the negative attention. It seems any attention the name recieves is "shaming" or "bullying."

I feel terrible that a child is involved in this, but I don't see any other explanation then this girl mother planned for and most likely desired this situation when she chose a name.

It seems down right delusional to select an absurd or elaborately out of the ordinary spelling for a name and not expect attention or criticism. It would be nice if that wasn't the world we lived in, but really believing that would be a break from reality. And what is the point of a 'unique' name other than standing out and seeking attention?

I'm honestly more appalled by the indignation of the mother than actions of the airline employee who starts this...

Edit: so I need to clarify. I'm not trying to argue that the worker who shared it wasn't crossing a line. What she did was unprofessional. People keep trying to direct the conversation in that direction, but I agree with it - my position is more that the parents are culpable in this too.

Edit2: I was talking with a former nurse from Davidson Michigan tonight about this. Apparently, during her tenure a judge had previously prevented a Mom from naming her twins Gonorrhea and Syphilis. So there is some precidents in the US justice system prevent certain names?

Edit3: Apparently La-a is a fairly common spelling for "Ladasha."

Edit4: Wow, this blew up...

As a victim of abusive parenting, who also knows others in a similar boat, I am now grappling with mental health issues. I’m unable to work or be productive because of it.

I’m so sick of the excuses “we did our very best” or “your parents just had a different love language”. Sure, abusive parenting might always be around, but it might be less prevalent, easier to spot by other people, and the excuse of “we didn’t know _____ is bad” can be reduced.

From a less personal standpoint, mental health problems, personality issues, and other things that lead to a less healthy society often are started or triggered by childhood trauma/abuse.

I know this is a big yikes to post in 2020, but I am posting this because I truely want my view to be changed. I know it is offensive to a lot of people. I have only met one transgender in my entire life and my view is probably mostly based on this person, let's call her Lana, and on the transgenders you see on the television.

Lana was male till the age of 19, where he told me he thought he was a girl. It was a very surreal moment for me, he had a huge beard and manly structure and there he sat, telling me he felt like he was a girl. I knew for sure he was joking (we had a habit of making fucked up jokes) so i bursted out in laughter. He told me again and added that he wanted to start progressing into a female. This was 7 years ago.

I knew Lana has been dealing with mental illness her entire life. She had a very rough childhood due to undiagnosed autism, adhd and depression. For some reason I connected that in my head to her becoming a transgender; She had undiagnosed problems and concluded that she didn't fit in because she wasn't in the right body. Writing this out makes my face turn red a little because i know thoughts like these are heavily frowned upon, but it is what i currently truely believe. I think proper therapy could have been a solution to let him deal with his past and feel comfortable and confident about who he is. I don't think mutilating body and everyone acting like she's a girl should be an acceptable cure.

Every time I see people on television interacting with transgenders, they seem very disingenuous to me. Patronizing, almost. Wow, you're so brave and stunning. Thoughts that come to mind are: For gods sake, stop playing along, this person is suffering and needs serious mental help, not to be put on a pedestal. I feel the same whenever Im near Lana and out of respect, I've distanced myself from her. I don't want to offend her, and i don't want to play along / support what i think is a cureable illness. I've studied Social Work Childcare, which probably plays part in why i think like i do.

I'm sure that if Lana wasn't bullied as much as she was, he would've felt more like he fit in. I'm convinced that his autism, adhd, and depression, next to not fitting in, made him feel feminine, and more distanced to his masculinity.

Please change my view.

Edit: Thanks reddit, you've done it. Gender Dysphoria is a mental illness for which currently the best available treatment is transitioning.

Edit2: I'm surpised at how much this blew up. When I wrote this post, I was very uninformed and filled with assumptions regarding gender dysphoria. Thank you to everyone who commented with personal stories, information, statistics, researches and all the sources to back them up. They have changed my view, and based from the pms and comments I've read, they've changed many other people's views too.

edit: thank you all so much! you've helped me to see many of the reasons why my opinion was flawed. i will be tapping out of the conversation. thanks once again!

yeah, basically what the title says. the 13 colonies (basically british territories, but more self sufficient than US territories) didn't get representation in parliament, which let to the american war of independence. so why doesn't the US give the us territories representatives in congress? i understand that the colonists basically self-governed, but they still had to follow british rule and pay taxes to britain, so they wanted representation. "no taxation w/o representation" so since people in US territories pay some taxes to the US government, they should get some voting representatives in congress, right? i think the main thing i'm unsure of is that the us territories aren't as self-sustained as the 13 colonies.