This is a terminally online post as no one in the real world cares about this stuff but Im making this post anyway.

Ive seen some discourse online that its wrong to refer to people from the United States of America as Americans, with people proposing other silly names like Usonian and United Statieans.

The main reason for this ive seen is people don't like that the US "claimed the name American when it refers to two entire continents."

This argument falls apart when you realize the names they're suggesting has the exact same issues. The USA isn't the only "united states" in the world, why refer to the people with an even broader term like United Statians?

The people of the United States of America should be called Americans, just like the people of the United Mexican States are Mexicans.

Id be surprised if someone posted a good argument but im all ears if anyone has a good reason.

Maybe I've just been watching too much Love Is Blind, but it drives me crazy how often people — especially older couples who've been together for a while — insist that relationships are this constant battle that require incredible compromise on both folks' parts.

I get it to a degree. There's no such thing as the perfect partner, and some amount of compromise is almost always going to be necessary in even the best relationship. My wife and I have both had to compromise certain things in order to maintain our marriage. And I definitely understand why special circumstances — sudden illness, death of a loved one, having to move across the country to care for a family member etc — can force someone to compromise.

But if one or both of you are having to constantly make big compromises for each other, that tells me that you're not all that compatible in the first place. If it's making sure you can cohabitate and sustain a healthy relationship is this grueling daily battle, why are you with this person? I get that relationships require work, but they shouldn't require constant, difficult work. There are plenty of potential partners out there who you naturally get along well with, and don't have to make constant compromises to please.

My prompt is clearly related to the most recent botch but it’s clearly a more systematic issue.

They restrict the chemicals that can be used. It continuously fails causing un due pain to not only the prisoner but to the family of the victims having to watch the failed attempt and then maybe a repeat.

By the alternative a firing squad is 100% effective. No one has survived taking multiple large rounds to the heart. Cost would be around a dollar a round, death via gunshot to the heart is instant, there is no pain, there is no watching someone suffer.

We ended the electric chair due to cruelty, lethal injection seems worse in about every way.

I would also consider CO2 as an alternative that is less messy or violent if that’s an option. Place them in a chamber, they fall asleep and never wake up. You could hook them up to monitors. Doesn’t seem cruel at all.

Just to be blunt I don’t know how anyone could argue for Lethal injection not being a cruel or ineffective method compared to other options.

Edit: specifically for the process I am thinking firing line, 7 people masked, 3 live rounds, 4 blanks, 30-06, all aim at the heart, fire at once. Give the prisoner the option for the head instead.

I think 60fps, and high frame rates in movies generally, get dismissed far too quickly. I think that film culture is too overly conservative about 60fps. 24fps is treated as sacred, and anything that departs from it gets rejected before it's given a real chance. There's been the same pattern with sound, color, and digital cinematography, where each was met with claims that it looked cheap or ruined the magic, and each was eventually accepted once people got used to it. When the main pushback to a format is "that's not how movies are supposed to look," that's a preference for the familiar, not an argument about quality. Being cautious about change isn't a flaw in itself, but a lot of people seem unwilling to give 60fps a fair shot at all, and I think that holds the medium back.

I'm not saying that 60fps should be the new standard, it should be a creative choice that both audiences and filmmakers should be more open to.

The usual counterexamples are Gemini Man, Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, The Hobbit, and people treat their failure of their usage of a higher frame rate as proof the format doesn't work. The movies had plenty of other problems, like weak scripts and uneven pacing, and a couple flops are a tiny sample, a movie being bad and also being 60fps doesn't mean it was bad because of 60fps, so correlation, not causation. And we've also seen the Avatar movies use 48fps selectively in action scenes and the usage of that was pretty well received as far as I've seen. The sample size is simply too small and inconsistent to declare the whole format a dead end.

A very common thing I see people say is that 60fps "looks unnatural" or like a soap opera. In my opinion that is a subjective feeling, not a measurable flaw. 24fps became the standard in the earlier eras of film mostly as a cost and technology compromise, not because it was the ideal frame rate for storytelling. We've spent a century associating it with "cinema," so anything else feels off. And I tend to agree, that it does feel "off", mainly due to the fact its so uncommon to see. Not inherently bad though in my opinion. Familiarity isn't the same as being better.

One argument against 60fps that I do understand is that the extra motion clarity can make sets, costumes, lighting, makeup, and CGI look more obviously fake, which can hurt suspension of disbelief. But I don't think that proves 60fps is inherently bad for movies. Filmmaking techniques have been developed around 24fps for decades, so if higher frame rates became more common, production design, VFX, lighting, and cinematography would likely adapt to the extra detail they reveal. We didn't reject 4k after 1080p being the standard for so long, since that also exposed flaws that lower resolutions could hide, but instead filmmakers adapted. I think the same could happen with frame rate.

If an amazing, critically acclaimed blockbuster were released in 60fps, say if The Odyssey or Interstellar hypothetically was also in 60fps, I'm quite confident it wouldn't take anything away from the movie or its success. If anything, it would enhance it. Action scenes, sweeping camera movements, and anything with fast motion would look clearer and more immersive, with less smearing and blur. And if that did happen, it would show other filmmakers the format can work at the highest level, and inspire more people to create in it instead of defaulting to 24fps.

Most countries in the world today have a vanilla implementation of democracy in which the idea is that the fear of losing elections should be sufficient for a government to push beyond its limits when it comes to development and other forms of progress. Beyond this vanilla democracy, no further measures are implemented to score the performance of governments the way you would score the performance of a corporate employee.

**My view is that the fear of losing elections alone only produces a very weak correlation between the output of the government and the good of the country.** Governments are incentivised to do the bare minimum. In most cases, the bare minimum is that governments should just aim to be a bit "better" than the opposition.

Let's get into what "better" even means in this instance, because it's not the conventional "better". The lack of standardised performance metrics implies that peoples' judgement of how different governments compare comes down to subjective debates on news channels. At this point, the real aim of a government in a "vanilla" democracy is not even to perform a bit better than the opposition, but instead to manipulate news channels and deflect from the measurable problems of the country to unimportant problems.

As long as a government can manipulate peoples minds and talk nonsense better than the opposition in these subjective debates, they are performing "better" in every relevant sense that a vanilla democracy demands.

**A few last comments**-

Is there nothing better than vanilla democracies? I think a lot of governance should be based on performance metrics, like number of jobs, infrastructure, inflation, combined with ideas of vanilla democracies. If a government doesn't perform well, it should be disqualified from even fighting the next election. It would create a better system in which new parties can rise from the ground up once an older one is disqualified for an election. This will produce a more competitive environment.

You've all heard the story before. Big corporation/wealthy individual comes after person with civil lawsuits with the intent of bankrupting them. After a long, drawn out battle in court, there's only one winner: the lawyers. Even if the case is dismissed fairly quickly, the defendant can get saddled with tens of thousands of dollars of attorney's fees.

This solves the issue of frivolous lawsuits by attaching economic incentive to file cases that will actually win, and levels the playing field when two financially mismatched parties are in court together.

In cases where the purpose of the lawsuit is to pursue a non-financial objective (such as specific performance), the amount can be agreed upon beforehand based on a specific outcome, rather than a % of the payout.

Extending the same concept even further, you could have the losing party always liable for attorney's fees on the other side of the lawsuit.

An avid basketball fan, I spent years swearing MJ was the goat. I've considered LeBron heavily, and I've considered Kareem.

But I find myself now believing Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest ever. If he were born in 1990, he would probably be the unanimous GOAT.

Let me walk you through my POV:

The Timeline

In high school, he was already an incredible T&F athlete and among the best basketball players on earth. Before he even touched a college court, an article was published entitled, 'Can basketball survive Chamberlain?'

In 1960, rookie Wilt Chamberlain won MVP. He's the first of two players to ever do so.

In 1962, Wilt Chamberlain had possibly the best season in history. He averaged 50 points, 26 rebounds, 2 assists shooting 51 percent from the field and scoring 100 points in a game.

In 1967, Wilt Chamberlain had possibly the best season in history. He averaged a near triple double: 24/24/8. He shot 68% from the field and won his second of 3 straight MVPs.

What the stats don't show us

Wilt Chamberlain played before the NBA recorded blocks.

His final 1973 season, after analysts went back and documented all of his film, saw him blocking an insane 5.4 blocks per game - Only Mark Eaton in 1985 had a higher confirmed single-season average. It's estimated he averaged up to 9 blocks per game in his prime.

Wilt Chamberlain was also an incredible rim deterrent - the same things said about Gobert and Wemby today? Also true for Chamberlain - players wanted nothing to do with him at the rim.

Physically, Wilt Chamberlain was a specimen. Possibly the most athletic person ever, period. At 7'1", playing at 300 pounds, he had enormous hands, a 7'7" wingspan, could run a 4.6 40, jump 48 inches, bench 500 pounds with a 50 foot triple jump. His blend of speed, strength, and size are unheard of. He tore his patellar tendon in 1969, a usually career-ending injury, and recovered in mere months.

Wilt Chamberlain was skilled. Watch the game tape. A physically dominant player like Shaq simply backs into people to move them.

Wilt Chamberlain used drop steps, hook shots, floaters, finger rolls, and a mid-range fadeaway, A shot that wouldn't be mainstream until the 80s, and still managed to shoot 66-68% across several seasons. Shaquille O'Neal played with his back to the basket. In the 1960s, backing down, a defender in the post would be called an offensive foul immediately. Post scoring was extremely skill-based.

What the stats do show us

Wilt Chamberlain was really good. He holds the record for points, rebounds, and blocks in a game. He has 100+ triple doubles and that's only those that are documented, he likely has hundreds with his block numbers, and several quadruple doubles, which only three players have ever done. He recorded the NBA's first, last, and only quintuple double - 53/32/14/24/11, documented by Harvey Pollack.

Wilt Chamberlain is the all-time leader in minutes per game, and averaged 48.5 out of 48 minutes in his prime.

Wilt Chamberlain has the most rebounds ever, he has 1.5% of every rebound in NBA history.

My conclusion

There is no other player who can do what Wilt can do. He has a case for the best scorer ever, best rebounder ever, best defender ever, second-best passing center ever, most athletic player ever, most dominant player ever, and definitely for the best player of all time.

The Universe is a big place, to put it mildly, so one would expect that it could be likely, if not certain, that we humans would encounter another intelligent civilization.

But there’s a lot of major factors standing in the way of this ever happening. Consider all that must take place for intelligent alien life to develop.

1. A star that is capable of providing the energy needed to sustain life in a stable, consistent, manner. This is the easiest part.

2. A planet that orbits within the habitable zone of such star. This is also common enough considering the size of the galaxy.

3. Life to arise on such planet. Considering that life on Earth took root as soon as conditions were stable, this could just be an extension of 2. In other words, life could be inevitable. So far, it’s not looking too bad.

4. Intelligent life to develop. Here is where the trouble begins. Of the millions of species to have existed on Earth, one has progressed to a civilization-building level of intelligence. We only have one planet to look at, but still, one million is a pretty big sample size.

5. That intelligent life to chronologically overlap with ours. Out of the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth, there have only been 5500 years (and that’s putting it generously) of advanced civilization, 150 years of a relatively-strong understanding of the universe, and zero years of interstellar travel.

6. A way to interact with such intelligent life, despite the vast distances between each star system. Even if we get extremely lucky, and there’s intelligent life in the Alpha Centauri system (the closest to Earth), we’re still looking at major logistical issues. Voyager 2, the farthest man-made object in space, will need c. 80,000 years to reach it. And again, this is the closest star.

Long story short, it’s reasonable to expect that alien civilizations will never be encountered. Somewhere out there in the distant reaches of space, this same conclusion is probably being reached.

As many here probably know, AIPAC is one of several major PACs that influences primary elections in a way that is arguably questionable in a democratic society. As such, some people advocate for making it have to register as a foreign agent. To me, that’s the wrong way of going about it, and let me explain why.

First of all, AIPAC is American. Our current laws basically only require that American entities register if they get money from a foreign government otherwise shown to be acting under the command of a foreign government.

Secondly, if even if we changed our laws regarding foreign registry so that AIPAC would have to register, that would still be the wrong way of going about it, as that would clash with freedom of speech/association. Generally-speaking, laws can’t treat an American entity differently on the basis that it advocates for a foreign country, unless we are currently at war with that country. Also, do we really want to set a precedent for giving citizens less freedom of on the basis that they want our country better relations with a foreign country? For instance, I want our country to maintain great relations with Canada and Mexico, and am willing to donate to candidates who agree with me about that, but I don’t feel that that should be enough to treat me differently under our laws.

So what’s the solution? We should not have any major PACs influencing our primaries, but I don’t want to do anything that risks putting free speech in jeopardy. Therefore, my preference would be to instead get rid of Citizens United and put more limits on major PAC spending more generally.

To change my mind, I will need to be convinced that my proposed solution is bad and/or somehow impossible, or that making AIPAC register would not run afoul of freedom of speech/association.

I look forward to your responses:)

Black holes are enormously popular with children who love space (and adults who are still children at heart).

But I think neutron stars are underrated.

Neutron stars are the most fascinating objects in the universe.

For the sake of explanation, I’m going to borrow one neutron star from space.

It is only about 24 km in diameter, yet it contains more mass than the Sun. As far as we know, it contains some of the hardest material in the universe.

The matter itself also takes a step beyond ordinary matter as we know it. Neutron drip. The boundaries of atomic nuclei begin to dissolve.

If it is a magnetar, it could destroy electronic devices on Earth from an enormous distance.

Its gravity bends light so strongly that, even though it is a sphere, you can see part of its far side.

To be honest, I had a hard time deciding between neutron stars and black holes. But black holes are already far too popular.

I think neutron stars have a more niche kind of appeal.

What could change my view:

Earth is excluded. This is to avoid the extremely powerful and predictable counterargument that Earth has life.

You are welcome to make the classic case for why black holes are so fascinating.

A poetic description of a supernova might also sway me.

Or you can introduce me to some other fascinating astronomical object that I may not know about, and explain why it deserves the title. If possible, please make your case in a way that an ordinary person can understand, without relying heavily on technical terminology or equations.

Representatives from the “White Dwarf Sales Department,” “Black Hole Fundamentalists,” “Supernova Poets,” and similar factions are all welcome.

Disclaimer:
I am not a native English speaker, so I will use AI translation to read all replies. I may also use AI assistance when I need to make sure that my scientific explanations are accurate.

I wrote this post myself, and ChatGPT translated it.

Edit:

Thank you very much for all the replies. I’ve enjoyed reading them, and you’ve also given me several things to look into over the next few days.

However, it’s time for me to go to sleep. I’ll come back tomorrow and properly consider the comments I haven’t been able to respond to yet.

Good night.

Edit 2:

Good morning.

I counted the deltas I’ve given out so far.

Four went to Black Hole Fundamentalists.
One went to the brute force of multiple galaxies.
One went to an off-field brawl involving the universe shortly after the Big Bang.

It seems the world is full of Black Hole Fundamentalists.

But I still maintain that, among astronomical objects, neutron stars should never be taken lightly.

Hi, I’m guessing this could be a hot take based on his popularity, but I’ve recently started trying to get into rap, looking at a variety of artists and styles, however everytime I’ve listened to drakes stuff he is coming across as a generic artists with samey beats and way too much autotune.

Again I am just starting my rap journey so perhaps I’m not aware of his style, impact etc, however to me he seems bland with the same beats I’ve heard many a time.

Bare in my mind I do think he’s a good rapper who can flow well but apart form that the other aspects of his music have failed to impress so far.

As a starting point, let's take the passport bros. Many have a notion that "western women" are degraded and untraditional. They aren't attracted to men physically or as a human companion, but they still, from time to time, pursue men as protectors or providers (which the manosphere hates them to want, even though they long to become it).

So, I'm right that those guys are misogynists, right? They don't have a point. Women aren't really degenerate whores. I think I'm right about that, but I'd be willing to hear the steel man for it. I can believe that women are taking more advantage of sexual freedom to have some sexual adventures more than in times past. I wouldn't hold that against them, but I can see how some men might.

But I actually think most women are looking for a stable relationship, but their "body count" is not under two because they had to kiss more than two frogs. Men made themselves appear to be a good match, but those men valued their own sexual freedom more than they claim to value loyal partnership.

What could change my view, in possible order from least to most likely

- Female celebrities who promote narratives that exploit men using their sexuality and have an extremely widespread female fandom

- Men with stories of "a guy I know"

- Men with stories of their own heterosexual encounters where they felt exploited

- Women who admit to using a man who wasn't their first choice but offered them security

I mean, I can see the possibility that as society degrades, more people will be willing to turn to relationships of convenience. It was that way at many times in history. Are we there yet, or we have not yet sunk that low?

Serena Won 23 Grand Slams which he did playing against the likes of Henin, Venus, Sharapova or Azarenka. And these players while good aren't anywhere near the level of Serena, basically she never truly had someone on her level that could take slams away from her which to me affects how I see her slam tally compared to the likes of Novak, Roger or Rafa

Roger, Rafa and Novak won 20/22/24 Slams despite competing with each other which means that without themselves they would've won way more than they did very likely win 25 to 35 Grand Slams

Just to put you an example of how much much the big 3 stopped each other

-Nadal stopped Federer from Winning Roland Garros 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2011, Wimbledon 2008 and Australian Open 2009/2014. He also stopped Djokovic in Roland Garros 2012, 2013,2014, 2020, 2022 and US Open 2010/2011

-Djokovic stopped Federer from winning Australian Open 2008, 2011, Wimbledon 2014, 2015, 2019 and US Open 2015. And he stopped Nadal from winning Roland Garros 2021, Wimbledon 2011/2018 and Us Open 2011

-Federer stopped Nadal from winning Wimbledon 2006, 2007 and Australian Open 2017. And he stopped Djokovic from winning US Open 2007, US Open 2008, Wimbledon 2012 and Roland Garros 2011.

Take 2 of the Big 3 members from Tennis and the likes of Nadal/Djokovic/Federer would have won 28/35 Slams while Serena finished with 23 while playing against the likes of Henin, Venus or Sharapova

For transparency: I posted a longer version of this argument before and it was removed. I'm trying to present the same underlying position more simply this time, rather than burying the argument under dozens of examples and side points.

I reached this conclusion after years of believing the opposite. And I'm deliberately keeping this post relatively simple rather than trying to argue every point at once. I have much more to say about each of these claims and I'm happy to give specific examples, answer any questions, and just talk more broadly in the comments.

I've experienced racism. I know it exists. And I'm deeply plugged into the history of anti-black racism. My argument is that it is no longer the primary obstacle to Black advancement, and that influential black organizations, intellectuals, and activists often make the problem worse by emphasizing racism, while underemphasizing cultural problems within the community.

I think culture is especially significant when it comes to attitudes toward education, sex, and crime. Relative to other groups, I believe Black American people have self-defeating cultural habits that largely perpetuate disparities.

This phenomenon isn't unique to Black Americans. Cultural insularity has held back lagging groups globally. Many groups have been generationally discriminated. But not all remained generationally insular. And the differences of such groups are stark. Because it's always been typical for groups to advance by adopting norms associated with the dominant culture rather than remaining isolated.

My criticism is that much of what I consider contemporary black leadership instead emphasizes racial grievance, cultural distinctiveness, and the legacy of racism while giving little attention to these internal problems and to policies that could materially improve outcomes, some of which black people support. Because it feeds their bottom line.

What would change my mind? I'd reconsider my position if someone could demonstrate that cultural factors have a much smaller role in contemporary black disparities than I believe, or that the policies and behaviors I favor don't actually improve outcomes.

I'd also be interested in historically disadvantaged groups who have repeatedly achieved comparable or better outcomes without the kinds of behavioral habits I consider conducive to upward mobility.

TL;DR: I think racism still matters, but black leadership is a substantially bigger obstacle to black advancement today.

Any delay in my response should be attributed to eating.

Obviously it was true in the past, and people should spend manage their time online, but with how interconnected everyone has been with mobile devices, and the streamlining and centralization of the modern internet due to social media, it’s not as effective to say things like that anymore to try and comfort or help others.

Look at how terms like “chud” and “-maxxing” suffixes are used everywhere online now by people who dont even know where said words came from.

Im in college and I’ve straight up heard people in my life, strangers and friends use this type of terminology casually, and these arent shut-ins, theyre regular people who have social lives.

This isn’t the 2000s anymore where the internet was left in the computer lab or home office. We have a computer in our pocket that we interact with daily, and you’re telling me that it doesn’t impact the outside world and how people act in it now? Especially after the pandemic?

Saying this advice is not helpful, it’s an empty platitude that’s boils down to “go away, i dont care about your argument or worries.” We need to accept that people are massively online now and that bleeds heavily into the real world, and work from there instead of denying it.

To me it just seems like the utility of dating apps for men just seems to be singnificantly lower for men. Let us say the utility of any swipe depends on the value of the match and the probability of actually getting a match plus a cost function. Let us say c(x) denotes the value of any swipe then

c(x) = P(x is match)*v(x) + co(x)

where v(x) is the value function of a given match and co(x) is the cost function. Cost in this model denotes anything that is costly about a match including bad interactions or risks, but also financial costs and other cost.

Now I think it is generally agreed that P(x is match) is generally way lower for men than women.

v(x) as the value of any given match also doesn't seem vastly dissimilar between genders. At least I can't find any good study that would actually back this up. Certainly not to the extent that it would offset P(x) being so much lower.

That leaves only the cost function as a driver for a potential equality and here I would argue that the cost function works very differently for both sexes and both face hardships. It seems hard to argue to me that the cost function alone should ofset the reduced probability of matches. Here you can also model the cost of filtering for women. On the other hand men are expected the cost of repeated rejection, iniative and also the financial cost for dating, even if things like security concerns may not play as big of a role.

Overall this would mean that the utility of any given swipe for men would be lower so the total utility would also be lower. That would be my argument for why it is generally worse for men.

To me this also seems evidenced by women generally churning dating apps more quickly (which may be the result of them finding a desirable match more quickly) and also by men being the main revenue generators for dating apps.

I should be clear, that I am referring to a standard breakup, not an actual divorce that involves legal paperwork and finances that often gets extremely messy. I should also be clear that I am referring specifically to chronic singleness, so not rejections. One of my friends once told me "You will never convince me that a rejection is worse than a breakup." I get that. The loss of what could have been vs the loss of what was. So, I also want to be clear that I am not here to argue that a rejection is worse than or even AS BAD as a breakup. Obviously, some rejections hurt worse than others (a random stranger you meet at the bar rejecting you is definitely not as bad as a friend who you have developed genuine feelings for over time but they just don't feel the same way), but that's another topic. However, I told my friend that when you've spent your entire post-puberty life (I'm 28M for reference) being single, while most of your friends are either engaged, married, have been in their current relationship for three or more years, or are just very good at serially dating, you begin to wonder if maybe there is something wrong with you. I told him that that was a type of pain that he will never understand.

I can imagine that breakups are hard, and even though I have never experienced one, I can strongly sympathize with people who have gone through them. Losing a routine and a best friend is always hard. I actually literally lost my best friend to a drug overdose back in January, but again, that's another topic. But losing anybody who you have already developed a strong bond with is hard. You don't have to have experienced it to know it. After all, we humans are social creatures, and it is hard-wired in our biology to crave companionship. And obviously, some breakups are worse than others. A breakup from a relationship that has lasted for a year or longer is going to be much more painful than a breakup from one that only lasted for a few weeks/months.

But as I mentioned before, being chronically single is a completely different type of pain. If you're at a point in your life where you feel like half of your friends are either married, engaged, or have been in a relationship for over three or more years, when you've never even gotten a second date, you begin to internalize it. For me, personally, I have always struggled, not only romantically, but socially as well. Physically, I was a late bloomer, and am neurodivergent which has made navigating social situations feel extra difficult. I have (and still am) done everything I can to try improve myself (work on my tech startup, applying for law school, going to the gym, etc.). And while being single has it's perks, it would be nice to have someone whom you can go home to who will ask you about your day, but more importantly, someone who you can ask about their day. Somebody who you can share your hopes and dreams with and just feel like your partner-in-crime, and will give you a hug if you ever have a bad day. After a certain point, it feels like I am "defective" and I just wish I knew what I could do to fix it.

It's true that I have never experienced the pain of a breakup. But to me, it's like that scene in The Wizard of Oz, where the wizard tells the tin man, "You my galvanized friend wanted a heart. But you have no idea how incredibly lucky you are not to have one! Hearts will never be practical until they can be made unbreakable!" The tin man sadly replies, "But I still want one..." That's exactly how I feel sometimes. I feel like I am ready to take on the hardships that come with being in a relationship. I want to find somebody who I can navigate life's journey with, and somebody who I can grow old with, and share my hopes and dreams with. But more importantly, I wish I could do that for somebody else, too! Some nights, I even lie awake with panic and anxiety attacks wondering if I will ever find somebody. In my mind, at least with a breakup, you know that you were attractive to somebody at least at one point, and things just didn't work out for one or another reason. But nothing says that you will never find that again. With being chronically single, you wonder if you may ever even get to experience that, and the fact that you've never experienced it, serves as further proof of that.

Back in college, one of my friends was in a toxic relationship, and she said to me, "Trust me. Being in love sucks, sometimes!" I said, and confidently meant it, "Well, I can assure you, that NOT being in love sucks even more." Of course, what do I know? Again, this is not a question of "Which is worse: a rejection or breakup?" which is a matter of what could have been vs what was. This question (chronically single vs breakup) is a matter of what was vs what may never happen. The debate of chronic singleness vs a breakup is a similar level of pain but distributed in different ways. I saw one person on Reddit describe a breakup as a sharp pain from a bad cut which leaves a scar. The actual pain may fade away eventually, but it still hurts for a while. And even when it stops hurting, you are still left with the scar forever. On the other hand, they described chronic singleness as a more dull pain which never really goes away, and while it may go away some day, for now, nobody knows how to stop it.

Think of it like this: a pregnant woman having a miscarriage vs a woman being told by her gynaecologist that she may never be able to have children. The pregnant woman having a miscarriage is extremely devastating. She lost a child, and it is heartbreaking beyond belief. For all we know, she and her partner have been trying forever to conceive a child. Of course, usually nothing says that she will never be able to get pregnant again, but that sure does not take away from the pain of losing her unborn child. But a woman being told that she can probably never have children is also painful but in a different way. Sure, she may have never experienced motherhood or pregnancy, but she may have desired that so much, and she can equally mourn the fact that she may never get to experience it. But while those two types of pain may be different, they still are equally deserving of empathy and compassion.

Perhaps, a less extreme example would be losing your dream job vs being chronically unemployed. You may have worked really hard to get that job, and it may have been a great job. You may have also lost that job through no fault of your own (the economy tanked, replaced by AI, the boss got in legal trouble, corporate buyout, etc.). But of course, losing your job is still painful. However, people underestimate the impact of being chronically unemployed for such a long period despite being highly qualified and perfectly capable within your field. After being unemployed for so long, you begin to question your self worth. Especially considering that like being in love, our society has attached a lot of one's self-worth to our "usefulness" in this economy.

Another thing that makes chronic singleness painful is the fact that many people often don't even acknowledge how much it hurts. Often, when people talk about their struggles with chronic singleness, people are quick to comment things such as, "Enough with your pity party", or "Gee, I wonder why you are single..." or "Go touch some grass", and many other hurtful statements. Most single people actually have nothing wrong with them. Some people are just in unfortunate circumstances or have to jump through more hoops, and just haven't had the means to get into a relationship. Especially in today's world, people are just less social, there are fewer third spaces, and don't even get me started on dating apps, which have made people extremely superficial! Unfortunately, our society ties a lot of one's self-worth to our ability to get into relationships or even just have sex. This is why I have a problem with terms like "incel" and the stereotype that lonely men are dangerous and want to cause harm to others. Most "involuntary celibate" men (and some women) actually suffer in silence, and it's only a very loud vocal minority that makes chronically single people (mostly men) look bad. If anything, those people are more likely to cause harm to themselves than to others.

Long story short: Breakups are hard, no doubt. But chronic singleness is a different type of pain that deserves just as much attention.

I feel like as a woman there is always a man out there who would be happy to be with you. I’ve heard women say things like “yeah but you have to sort through the assholes” or “most only want sex” or whatever.

Ok? I’d rather have the issue of sorting through good and bad women or have a woman use me for sex than have nothing at all.

I feel like women have options, not all men do.

Call me an incel or a misogynist I don’t care.

If you think I hate women you don’t know me.

I’m just tired of hearing women complain about being alone when I feel like they could change that if they wanted to.

The purpose is merely to ridicule the argument to make it unacceptable.

Most of the criticism aims for a different flavour of capitalism, not its abolition.

The ongoing debate

Capitalism has become a word that seems to mean different things to different people. For some, it means the exploitation of workers by greedy billionaires. To others, it means the freedom to pursue and grow your own business and reap the benefits of your hard work without someone else telling you what to do.

The role of government especially is up for debate. As soon as someone calls for regulation of something they perceive as unjust, it usually doesn't take long before someone responds with: "That's socialism!"

And actually, that's not even an argument. At most, it's a description. Still, in a capitalist society, being called a socialist — or even a communist — often carries a moral judgement with it.

Some people have even taken the accusation and turned it into a label for themselves. It sometimes seems as though there's a war going on between capitalists and socialists.

But is that actually what most of these disagreements are about?

What are the core features of capitalism?

Coming up with one universally accepted definition of capitalism is difficult. But it's easier to identify a few core features that distinguish capitalist economies from other historical economic systems.

When you look at these features, it's easy to see how fundamentally different this is from, for example, a Soviet-style centrally planned economy.

Is what people are asking for actually socialism?

That's the tricky part, isn't it? Let's look at some things people commonly ask for.

Higher work compensation

This usually comes either in the form of unions asking for higher pay or people asking the government to set a minimum wage.

These are two different things. When unions ask for higher pay, that's fundamentally a negotiation over the price of labour.

Asking the government to step in is different. The economic benefits or downsides of minimum wages aside, however, a minimum wage doesn't abolish capitalism. It's a restriction on how one particular market is allowed to operate.

You can oppose that regulation. But opposition to a regulation doesn't make the regulation socialism.

Tax the rich

That's another one that comes up frequently.

And shockingly, raising or lowering tax rates doesn't end capitalism either.

You can argue endlessly about what tax rates are economically sensible or morally justified, but as long as private ownership, private enterprise, wage labour, and markets continue to exist, changing the tax rate doesn't by itself replace capitalism with socialism.

Split apart large companies

This has happened historically. Teddy Roosevelt became famous for aggressively using antitrust law against concentrated corporate power.

Did antitrust enforcement abolish capitalism in the United States?

Heck no.

In fact, breaking up monopolies can be understood as an attempt to preserve competitive markets rather than abolish them.

Billionaires shouldn't exist

A tougher one.

At first, this is simply an opinion. But it can mean very different things depending on the person making the argument.

Some people genuinely argue that the government should confiscate assets above a certain level of wealth. That certainly represents a much stronger intervention into private property than ordinary taxation, and fixation on the specific number "one billion" is fairly arbitrary.

Others, however, simply advocate steeply progressive taxation, wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, or other mechanisms intended to prevent extreme concentrations of wealth.

You can agree or disagree with those policies, but taxation itself does not automatically replace capitalism with socialism.

Expropriation

This is another case where the act itself doesn't tell us whether something is socialist.

Capitalist societies can and do allow compulsory acquisition of private property for specific public purposes. Taking someone's land to build a railway, for example, does not replace capitalism as an economic system.

The more important question is what happens to ownership afterwards and whether the underlying institution of private ownership remains intact.

There is a meaningful difference between:

- taking specific property for a particular public purpose,

- redistributing wealth through taxation or even compulsory seizure,

- forcing a dominant company to divest parts of its business,

- and systematically transferring privately owned productive enterprises into public, social or worker ownership.

The last case is fundamentally different. If private ownership of the means of production is generally being replaced by social or worker ownership, then one of the defining institutions of capitalism is being replaced and the policy moves into socialist territory.

Expropriation therefore isn't inherently socialism. Systematic socialisation of the means of production is.

Workers should own the workplace

Another tough one, because this depends heavily on what exactly is meant.

If the argument is that private ownership of productive enterprises should generally be replaced by worker, cooperative, or social ownership, then that does challenge one of the defining institutions of capitalism and moves into socialist territory.

But demands for stronger workplace democracy, employee representation, profit sharing, worker ownership schemes, or even individual worker cooperatives do not by themselves abolish capitalism.

They change how ownership, power, and profits are distributed within it.

There is a substantial difference between saying:

"Workers should have more influence and receive a larger share of the value they help create"

and saying:

"Private ownership of productive enterprises should cease to be the dominant form of ownership."

The latter is a systemic challenge to capitalism. The former isn't necessarily one.

People should work less

Whether the demand is for more paid sick days, shorter working weeks, or more paid vacation, I can't see how any of this inherently abolishes capitalism.

It changes the conditions under which labour is sold.

You might think those conditions are economically harmful or excessive. But that's a different argument from saying they're socialist.

Free healthcare

There's obviously no such thing as literally free healthcare. Someone has to pay for it, and most people advocating "free healthcare" are perfectly aware of that.

Doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals aren't expected to work for free.

What people usually mean is either healthcare that doesn't financially ruin someone because they got unlucky in the sickness lottery, or a system in which the cost of healthcare is shared through taxes or public insurance rather than falling primarily on the individual patient.

Neither of those arrangements inherently abolishes private ownership of businesses, wage labour, markets, or the broader structure of a capitalist economy.

TL;DR

A large share of what gets described as "anti-capitalist" criticism doesn't actually call for abolishing capitalism.

Higher wages, stronger unions, minimum wages, higher taxes, antitrust enforcement, workplace democracy, shorter working hours, and public healthcare can all exist within a capitalist economy.

There absolutely are people who want to replace private ownership of productive capital with social, state, or worker ownership. That's a genuinely different economic project.

But a lot of contemporary criticism of capitalism is better understood as an argument about what kind of capitalism they want to have and what the rules within it should be, not an argument for abolishing capitalism altogether.

And thus, calling these arguments or people making them socialist is merely a straw man argument.

Context: A while back, my wife and I were watching a TV show where the guy proposed to his girlfriend. What mildly infuriated me was when he said - "I want you to be the mother of my unborn child" as a line in his proposal. Today, we have a 2 year old child and are learning each other as parents.

My view: Using any version of the phrase "mother of my child" during proposals is unromantic.

Assumptions and constraints:

1. A couple with no children deciding to propose to marry.

2. There is an opinion on how this line reduces a woman to a reproductive role. I agree with this. So for this post, I don't need to be convinced of it.

Reasons:

1. Without having a child, one doesn't get to know what kind of a mom she would be. There's no evidence for a man to be convinced of this.

2. Couples rarely share ideas of how they'd be as a parent and how they'd want their partner to be one. Even if they do, it's hardly a deal breaker at that point.

3. Parenthood forces couples to recalibrate their relationship in an unromantic (honest, serious) way.

Ok, here's the simple-enough argument:

When people stop something like prostitution by force, they are admitting the prostitute has another option. They aren't saying "the prostitute will starve to death if they don't do it," because they are stopping the prostitution.

So, there actually is no economic duress argument at all. They simply have to say, whatever the prostitute was going to do to survive *instead* of prostitution, they had that choice all along, and for whatever reason, they were not choosing it, they were choosing prostitution instead. So it was a choice all along.

There is the argument that you could "solve" the issue via UBI or similar, but that's off topic to the force question (and raises the question of whether everyone who still chooses to do it after they have all their essentials sorted are finally choosing it)

What seems to always come back is "you've proven it's a choice, but it's not a great one, their alternatives could be eating bugs etc."

Ok, great, aside from setting me up to respond with "thus, you are dooming them to eat bugs," all choices are relative. When somebody points a gun at your head, they are creating a dichotomy, there is no dichotomy solved by this (argument from ignorance fallacy)

If it was a network of 20 or 100 relative choices "but they were all mostly crap anyway," then you are taking away the choice that was at the TOP for these people you seem to think are desperate, and they have one less choice on the relative network

If you actually DID want to change it to *luxuries,* if you wanted to say prostitution is "not a choice because she's doing it for a PlayStation 5," I can STILL make the argument they either had another way to earn it or, or you are taking their PlayStation 5 away from them :P

How you can change my view: well, not by getting lost in the weeds and giving me other arguments against prostitution, like causing diseases/infidelity/unwanted pregnancies or religion etc, because this is about the economic duress argument and supposed to apply to dozens of other things.

I actually don't know how the "include a 'how you could change my view' section" rule and the "no devil's advocate" rules don't contradict each other, so let's just say, I want to see consistency, no accusations of "whataboutism" if I ask about consistent rules applying to something else. As an anarcho-capitalist I can in fact demand some pretty high standards for consistency on this and not be a hypocrite, as well as reject most "protect people from themselves" type arguments.

So you have basically 3 "how you cannot change my views" and potentially infinite ways you can, that's best faith possible I can think of.

Like its alternatives, utilitarianism can lead to uncomfortable conclusions. I believe that adding a discount in proportion to uncertainty addresses many of these uncomfortable conclusions, and makes utilitarianism closer to fully applicable.

principle

"Uncertainty" here does not mean probability. Where we have reasonable probabilities, we can calculate the expected utility. The uncertainty here is deeper, either due to lack of knowledge, or because the uncertainty is fundamentally epistemic and we cannot know.

"Discounting uncertainty" is effectively putting moral value on certainty. While in principal this might not be essential, practically it is. In the end any consequentialist framework relies on those practical outcomes. This limits gambling with moral outcomes and promotes slower-but steady and well-understood paths towards good.

The discount is a subtraction from the utility calculated by normal utilitarianism. This makes it differ from a expected utility calculation, where a less accurate guess would be equally likely to be higher as lower than a high precision one.

examples

One thing this introduces is a form of selfishness. If I have some chocolate, normal utilitarianism would be ambivalent on me eating that or giving it away. The smallest of reasons to give the chocolate away becomes a good reason to give it away. Say a friend is ever so slightly hungry, and I am not. Traditionally, the highest utility action is to give my friend the chocolate. However, let's introduce the uncertainty discount here. Epistemically, I know how much I enjoy chocolate more than how much my friend likes it, and I probably know it better for my friend than for a stranger. Discounting by that uncertainty lets me keep the chocolate, or prefer friends over strangers.

There is a catch here. I called it selfishness before, but this does come back as the opposite for the least negative actions. I.e. all else being equal if I have to cause some pain, I should choose myself over someone else, because I know more about how much that would impact me than I do about others. Some self sacrifice for negative actions and selfishness for positive ones feels right to me - but perhaps there are some issues here.

Another issue this addresses is the utility monster. This monster gets more utility than others from a certain resource. We should give that utility monster all the resource we can in the traditional utilitarian sense. However, the utility monster becomes more and more uncertain to be real and possible, the more we assert their utility gain to be higher than others', that epistemic uncertainty gain adds up the discount to balance the monster out.

CMV

I'd like to be correct more than I like to follow this "utilitarianism + uncertainty discount". I would love to hear what, if anything, is messed up about this approach. To tweak it, or discard it as an improvement altogether.

Everyone has probably heard of the cornell 7 case by now and there have been many takes floating around. But one point I haven't heard many people talking about is my belief that cases of rape under the influence like are a direct and unavoidable risk to wide spread acceptance of the use of dissociative drugs for personal pleasure. If we accept the private use of such drugs that prevent an individual from consenting and prevents an individual from making rational decisions and self control how could we possibly prevent similar cases from happening. It seems to me that the liberal/libertarian views on drugs, specifically the views that individuals should have the autonomy to use drugs as they pleasure, seem fundamentally at odds with the desire to eliminate rape.

I would like to illustrate my case with an example. Let's say that person A and Peron B choose to meet up. They both consent to using a dissociative drug. Later on while both intoxicated, person A asks person B for intercourse and person B says yes and they engage. In this case we would classify person A as having rapes person B. Well based on this claim some may counter my main point by saying acceptance of using drugs does not deny personal responsibility. Therefore, the responsibility should lie on the individual and not social acceptance of such drugs. But I, don't think this disproves my claims. In fact, I would agree, but I would place the acts of choosing to take the drugs as the action deserving responsibility for. Why? Because the latter is a textbook case of moral luck. Maybe person B was going to ask for sex a short moment later(thus reversing the victim and perpetrator), maybe person B just happened to be an individual generically predisposed to be more reactive to the drugs. All of these are factors out of an individual's control that would massively change how we perceive the case.Therefore, I believe for cases of consensual consumption of drugs that remove autonomy, the only possible action we can hold responsible or control is the initial action of choosing to be under the influence of drugs without additional supervision .

As such, how can we socially accept such use of drugs while claiming to care about preventing victims from rape when drug use directly leads to rape?

Humanity has already found the most efficient and consistent mode to kill a person who was sentenced to death: the gilloutine. It works the same regardless of operator’s skill and physiognomy of the victim and minimizes suffering.

However, it looks gruesome for onlookers because it removes the head.

Currently used methods like lethal injection or electric chair are less reliable and carry more risk of suffering needless pain for the victim, however they reduce gore for the onlookers. Therefore they make it easier to condemn people to death even if you are not 100% comfortable with killing them and you increase needless suffering just to silence that cognitive dissonance between supporting death penalty and being appalled by the physical violence of carrying it out.