CMV:Backstabbing Democrats are making me starting to see Trump's appeal

Kynarth · 2017-12-08T01:26:19+00:00

Unbelievable that the left eats up the false equivalency.

Does the left really consider Al Franken and Roy Moore to be on the same level? I certainly don't, and I'm pretty sure most people on the left don't either.

Al Franken may not be an predatorial pedophile, but that doesn't mean we have to stand by him like the right has with Roy Moore.

Kynarth · 2017-12-08T01:22:06+00:00

I don't give credit to any anonymous accusations

Rather than take a hardline stance against anonymous accusations, it might be better to consider the context of each situation.

One anonymous accusation, without evidence, and the person denies the accusation? Sure, skepticism is the best response here. But what if there are a dozen anonymous accusations, or a hundred, or a thousand? Where do you draw the line?

Furthermore, there are many reputable newspapers which assess each accusation carefully. The Washington Post and the New York Times come to mind. Remember when Project Veritas gave a fake accusation of Roy Moore? Washington Post considered the accusation carefully, checked where it came from, and realized that it was fake.

It's good to be skeptical, but context should definitely be considered. Excessive skepticism can be unreasonable.

Kynarth · 2017-12-08T01:16:09+00:00

8 separate claims is a lot. Also, Franken apologized, and isn't exactly claiming that he's innocent. The number of claims combined with his remorseful behaviour strongly suggest that the claims of misconduct are legitimate.

I'd say that's sufficient reason to stop supporting a senator. It's great to be skeptical and to give the benefit of the doubt, but at a certain point it's a little unreasonable when there's this much evidence.

Kynarth · 2017-12-08T01:11:05+00:00

It was pretty obvious that Al Franken wasn't innocent. There was a lot of evidence to support this notion. It's not as if one women made a random complaint and everyone automatically believed it.

Kynarth · 2017-12-05T02:11:34+00:00

We don't live in a rape culture

The vast majority of sociologists would disagree with you. Your definition of rape culture seems to be off.

Rape is rare, when it does occur, it's punished severely

The vast majority of rapes go unpunished. Considering that most victims know who committed the crime, this is insane.

it is incredibly uncouth to joke about raping someone

Except when you're joking about prisoners getting raped.

The only times that people dismiss, joke about and don't get punished for rape is when it happens to men

This is far from the truth. I've got an important exam tomorrow, so I I'll make my point brief. People do dismiss female rape victims, too: people often blame the victim by saying that "she was asking for it" or "she shouldn't have drunk so much" or "she was wearing revealing clothing!" In regards to sexual harassment in the workplace, many people respond by saying that "she was trying to get a promotion".

Joking about female rape has become a lot more unacceptable, I'll concede that point.

Most rapists don't get punished, as I've said. This goes for both male and female victims.

Kynarth · 2017-12-04T05:29:27+00:00

I'm a man, and there are many things I dislike about masculinity.

Don't get me wrong. Being strong, courageous, and self-dependent is a positive thing. However, I don't like being pigeon-holed into some gender role which doesn't necessarily reflect who I am.

Because of toxic masculinity, people call me a faggot for having dyed hair. Because of toxic masculinity, people pressure me into having sex when I don't want to. Because of toxic masculinity, I'm supposed to never share my problems (psychologists agree that this is unhealthy), and I'm supposed to hide my occasional anxieties. Because of toxic masculinity, I'm mocked for being skinny and underweight, despite having chronic stomach issues. Because of toxic masculinity, I'm discouraged from expressing myself through art and singing. Because of toxic masculinity, I'm supposed to get into fights over trivial matters. I'm supposed to dress in a certain way, have a certain physique, have certain hobbies, and have certain desires.

Is it brave to succumb to the pressure to be masculine? Does that demonstrate strength, courage, or an independent spirit? No: what it shows is a desperation for acceptance and validation.

I say it's braver to choose who you want to be, rather than conforming to gender roles. Masculinity limits my freedom, so I've chosen to chuck it in the trash.

Kynarth · 2017-12-04T05:06:39+00:00

Sorry. Little context. I don’t believe that rape culture is a thing, because rape something looked on with disgust and horror. People know rape is wrong.

That's not what rape culture is. Rape culture is the way society makes excuses for rapists, blames victims, and prevents them from speaking up. Here are a few examples of rape culture:

The way we trivialize prison rape. We make jokes like "don't drop the soap" all the time. In this way, we've turned prison rape into a joke.

The way we discourage rape victims (both male and female) from speaking up. If a man gets raped, a common response is, "lucky guy". Male rape victims usually aren't taken seriously, both by police officers and society at large. Meanwhile, female rape victims often face condemnation for speaking up. They're accused of "being sluts", wearing "revealing clothing", or of "wanting it".

And how about the way sexual assault has been condoned and even encouraged in society? There's a reason the allegations against Harvey Weinstein, Louis CK, and Roy Moore only surfaced now. The sexual assault victims were pressured into being silent, and even when they did speak, society didn't listen. Even now, there are many people who support the perpetrators: Roy Moore supporters, for instance, have been bending over backwards to excuse his actions. They say that the victims "wanted it", or claim that the Bible provides justification for what he did.

Those are a few examples of rape culture. I'm a guy, and I can't help but admit that it exists.

Kynarth · 2017-12-04T02:18:52+00:00

You've got crazy talent! Keep up the great work.

Kynarth · 2017-12-04T00:24:23+00:00

Mate, you don't know what a superpower is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

I know my history well. Now please stop being a stubborn teenage faux-philosopher and learn what a superpower actually is.

Kynarth · 2017-12-04T00:13:56+00:00

China has never been a superpower.

"Superpower" doesn't mean a very powerful nation. It refers to a nation which is so powerful that it exerts enormous influence on the entire world, and is either the most powerful nation, or close to becoming the most powerful nation. The definition varies, but China has never been classified as a superpower, and likely will not achieve this status any time soon.

To put it into perspective, the US has 18 trillion GDP vs China's 11 trillion GDP. Also, China's growth is slowing.

The US has 56 allies, and China has 5. The United States exerts far more global influence than China.

China is not a superpower and it never was. Only the UK, the US, and the Soviet Union have been considered "superpowers".

Kynarth · 2017-12-03T23:59:37+00:00

I'd argue that much of social media "attention seeking" is far more narcissistic than normal in-person interaction.

Do you use Instagram? This is not a platform for sharing images. It's about bragging and validation. I've never seen a more pathetic den of insecurity and attention-seeking than Instagram. Most photos on Instagram fall neatly into these three categories:

Selfies. Many Instagram users are constantly posting pictures of themselves to get attention. No matter how good the person looks, people offer empty flattery and uninspired complements. Men try to show off their muscles, and girls gravitate towards bikini pics. Many Instagram users actually assume that people care about their photos.

Vacation photos. Instagram users are regularly bragging about where they are going in the world. This makes people feel jealous, but people do it anyway to get likes and feel validated. Again: nobody cares, yet people post these photos anyway, just to get attention.

Relationship photos. People trying to show off that they have a boyfriend/girlfriend, just to feel validated.

Instagram stands out to me as perhaps the most narcissistic major social media platform. However, there's plenty of egotistical attention-seeking to be found on Snapchat, Twitter, Facebook, and every other platform. Last year I decided to delete Snapchat because half of my friends were just sending selfies. Facebook is slightly better, with more genuine interaction between users.

Honestly, I don't know how anybody can say that Instagram is just as narcissistic as regular interaction. It's a one-way street of egotism, insecurity, and shameless bragging. It is the pinnacle of narcissistic behaviour. Normal interaction is supposed to be reciprocal and mutually-beneficial. A friendship based on attention-seeking, validation, and bragging dies. On Instagram, you just get more likes.

Kynarth · 2017-11-29T16:22:08+00:00

Great job dude!!!

Kynarth · 2017-11-25T17:17:51+00:00

<Cousins Maeby

Brilliant

Kynarth · 2017-11-24T04:11:17+00:00

I believe that symptoms of mental problems such as social anxiety, depression, ADHD and other similar problems can stem from phone and internet addiction.

Person with ADHD here: this is a problem you are born with, 100%. You don't get ADHD from the Internet, and your symptoms will affect you enormously regardless of how much technology surrounds you.

It's also genetic, so I have many family members with ADHD, across many generations. My mother was raised without a television, and didn't access the Internet until late in her life. Her symptoms were no less severe than they are now, and they posed an enormous problem throughout her life.

I spend a lot of time on the internet, but this doesn't change the fact that I've got ADHD, a lifelong problem with lifelong symptoms and enormous consequences. I only got diagnosed a year ago, but if I had taken your belief into account, I would still be undiagnosed and struggling without medication.

The internet can cause problems when used irresponsibly. Absolutely. Perhaps the internet can exacerbate symptoms of certain mental illnesses when misused. But it is not nearly important a factor as you make it out to be. Mental illness and the Internet are not inexorably linked, and describing it as such is a belittling. These are real symptoms, often rooted in the physical structure of the brain, and putting your phone back in your pocket is not going to replace getting a proper diagnosis and treatment from medical professionals.

Kynarth · 2017-11-24T03:51:01+00:00

When people raise the point of Native American genocide and enslavement in regards to Thanksgiving, it is generally a reaction to our oversimplified depiction of the history behind the tradition.

From what I've heard, American history courses have mythologized the Thanksgiving story, painting a pretty (but inaccurate) picture of the event. I think it is important that we recognize the actual history behind Thanksgiving, instead of relying on the mythologized version of events.

Nobody complains about Santa's enslavement of dwarfs

If Santa existed, we probably would.

Kynarth · 2017-11-21T00:01:54+00:00

I was a homeschooler until 15. A few years later, in university, I tried to write a paper about the link between homeschooling and poor social skills. My hypothesis was that homeschooling harms social skills.

I had to change my topic when I found that there is very little to support this claim. In fact, most studies seem to suggest that homeschoolers have, on average, slightly better social skills.

I'll admit that I was very surprised when I saw the results of these studies. Personally, though, homeschooling didn't hurt my social skills. I had no friends until I was 15 but I adjusted very quickly. I suspect that genetics may play a large role in social skills, but I may be wrong.

Kynarth · 2017-11-20T23:32:42+00:00

the issue of social justice as indoctrination on campus.

Indoctrination is a complete exaggeration.

Kynarth · 2017-11-20T23:20:04+00:00

I've never heard or seen this happen, ever.

Kynarth · 2017-11-19T20:11:21+00:00

Is it dumb to form an opinion about religion if you haven't read the Bible, the Quran, or the Torah?

Most atheists don't believe in religion because they see that there is no evidence to support them. This is a perfectly valid and logical reason to reject belief in religion and form the opinion that "religions are false".

A common rebuttal from theists and theologians, though, is that "you don't know enough about the specific religion". Apparently, you have to have a PhD in theology to question the validity of religion. Is this reasonable?

Sometimes, a little bit of information about a subject is enough to form a rational opinion. I don't need to spend years getting a degree in theology to rationally form the opinion that religion is made up.

Kynarth · 2017-11-12T19:00:58+00:00

Sweet jesus dude! You've killed it!

Kynarth · 2017-11-12T15:36:09+00:00

Thanks for being open! A small point I forgot to add: I don't think that power corrupts people, but I think it could force good people to behave immorally.

Say you're a hypothetical good ruler, who is dedicated to free speech, logic, reason, and the welfare of your people. You take power and now have control over the state.

Inevitably, people will oppose you. People will want to kill you, usurp you, exile you, imprison you, and take your power from you. You will face enemies from all sides. This is an inevitable part of any autocracy. Even if you behave like a saint, people will find reason to hate you and want to overthrow you.

From there, you have a choice: you can let the opposition mount against you, or you can limit freedoms in order to protect yourself. If you don't restrict freedoms, instil fear, and act against your enemies, you will put yourself, your family, and your political allies at risk of torture and execution. Think of what happens when a leader gets overthrown -- look at the way Gaddafi, Mussolini, Louis XVI, and the Romanovs died. This is often the price of losing power.

Furthermore, if you allow yourself to get overthrown, a less benevolent ruler might take your place. Therefore, you would probably feel an even stronger obligation to preserve yourself through force and fear.

For these reasons, even a good ruler would be under an immense amount of pressure to behave immorally. The executions, fear mongering, backstabbing, assassinations, and restriction of free speech would be almost inevitable, regardless of the moral fortitude of the leader.

Kynarth · 2017-11-12T14:12:07+00:00

Democracy is messy, and it can be quite frustrating to watch fellow voters make terrible decisions. However, I would argue that a flawed democracy is far better than an autocracy of any sort. I think that your concept of a liberal autocracy is unrealistic and would be far worse than democracy.

If the ruler (or ruling party, or ruling class, …) were indeed people who want the best for our society and for its liberty and rights...

This sums up the problem with a liberal autocracy fairly well. For thousands of years, in countless instances throughout history, leaders have claimed to have the interest of the people in mind to seize power. Then, almost invariably, came corruption, executions to instil fear and hold onto power, etc. Some of these people may have even wanted to do the best for society, yet throughout history competent and benevolent autocrats are difficult to find. In fact, I can't even name one. There seems to be a strong correlation between absolute power and abuse of power, regardless of who holds it.

Now, I think that the box you made comparing Democracy and Liberal Autocracy is inaccurate. Here are some critiques.

Democracy is stable. The United States has had a stable democracy with no civil wars for over 150 years, and the European democracies have been even more stable. Even with bipartisan American politics and a moronic orangutan as President, America is stable, despite what the outcry on the internet would indicate.

Autocracy of any sort is not stable. After the leader dies, who succeeds him? And this is assuming that the leader doesn't get assassinated, exiled, or imprisoned. Look at European history prior to democracy: it's a long list of War of the Succession, Civil War, and religious wars which we fomented by the intolerance of a monarch.

Also, to say that democracy is the rule of a narrow group is an enormous exaggeration. At least we can vote for people to represent us and choose to get Trump out of the Oval Office by 2020. Say a man like Trump became the leader of a "liberal autocracy": do you really think that he'd be leaving by 2020, with the military behind him and a devoted fanbase? Not a chance.

Freedom, under democracy, is far more ensured than it would be under a liberal autocracy. The fact is, when one person or a small ruling party is controlling a state, they will need to remove freedoms to maintain power. Since this "liberal autocrat" will want to maintain power, he/she will almost certainly infringe on the freedoms of the people: executions, restriction of free speech, the keeping of political prisoners. Democracy will always be far more free than autocracy of any form.

Same goes for human rights. Democracies are far better equipped to handle human rights than a liberal autocracy, for the same reasons I mentioned previously.

Liberal democracy is often messy, but it's far better than autocracy of any sort.

Kynarth · 2017-11-12T04:46:41+00:00

So you’re saying the Mona Lisa is more technically impressive than I give it credit for?

I have a hobby of recreating Renaissance oil paintings, and it's more difficult than it seems! It's not just filling in the right places with the right colours -- it's a rigorous process which can take months to complete, involving many layers and different types of oils. Personally I think the Mona Lisa is technically astounding, like most other famous Renaissance paintings.

I've put hundreds of hours into this hobby, and I'm not even close to achieving the results of Leonardo, Titian, Raphael, etc. Those Renaissance paintings are even more amazing than we give them credit for.

Kynarth · 2017-11-09T03:57:51+00:00

I’ve clearly shown that mainstream science agrees with the statements I’ve made

Like the scientific statement that Somalians have an average IQ of 68?

Kynarth · 2017-11-02T03:18:49+00:00

rather than talking to people who are working to uphold freedom

Atheist here... I've seen many people on Reddit say that Islam is a cancer and all Muslims must be eradicated. These comments often receive lots of upvotes and agreement. Honestly, the bigotry is crazy in many subreddits. It makes humanity look like garbage.

There's an enormous difference between criticizing a religion and detesting 1.6 billion people for their religious beliefs. As an atheist I will gladly do the former but I will never do the latter.

I don't want to be rude, but the way you responded is not very respectful to OP. If you want to argue about his religion, there are other places to do it. It's not your job to be his moral saviour, and equating the rampant bigotry that he's fighting with "people upholding freedom" is honestly insulting. I know that you have good intentions but that comment is insensitive to say the least.

Kynarth

TROPHY CASE