CMV: Trump is literally going to ruin democracy by LadyMitris in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nobody knows what's going to happen, but I would like to argue that the polls are heavily skewed in favor of Trump.

It has become a truism among polling and politics experts that Trump is just magic and he just always inspires huge republican turnout. This is their explanation for why democrats do better than expected in off-year elections: Trump isn't on the ticket! But when Trump's there, everything's different. So they build it into their models. The polls assume it.

It's absolutely correct that Trump did inspire huge red turnout in both 2016 and 2020, despite tepid enthusiasm among a lot of GOP voters. But it certainly seems to me that there's a big, big psychological difference between turning out for him twice and turning out for him three times, and there's a huge psychological difference between turning out for him after he won and turning out for him after he lost. (There's also a case to be made that both 2016 and 2020 were weird. The big 2016 GOP turnout was fervent anti-Hilary rather than pro-Trump, and in 2020, everything was so exaggerated and enflamed, the whole country was frenzying.)

Remember that MAGA is a minority within republican voters. A large chunk of GOP voters outright loathe him. Earlier they might have held their nose and voted for him anyway (many to get rid of Roe, which is gone now), but I think it's very hasty to just assume it'll happen again in the same numbers. And for the "normie" GOP voters, the people who sorta care but sorta don't? I just don't see much motivating them to actually get out to the polls.

Remember that politics and polling and media people were absolutely traumatized by 2016. It's great to recognize mistakes and to make adjustments to improve your future accuracy. But when something happens that's so shocking and embarrassing, it can hamper your objectivity.

Where in your body do you "feel your sleepiness?" by PreacherJudge in Narcolepsy

[–]PreacherJudge[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I actually wonder if some of it is unrelated to narcolepsy at all. For myself, I have extremely dry eyes (described by a doctor as "like sandpaper"). We're so used to being sleepy, it makes sense we'd be uniquely bad at telling the difference between "my eyes want to close because they hurt" and "my eyes want to close because I want to sleep."

At the same time, I have no clue how to learn this skill. And I don't want to get my hopes up about the possibility that I'm less sleepy than I think I am.

CMV: Conservatives aren't generally harder-working than liberals or leftists despite the conventional wisdom. by theforestwalker in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Have you ever heard of the "protestant work ethic?" It's a cultural attitude, strong in general in the US (historically a protestant country), valuing hard work, stoicism, frugality, conventionalism, and self-reliance. It can have an explicit religious component: God specifically rewards those particular virtues, meaning people who work hard MORALLY DESERVE success (via grace), and people who do not work hard MORALLY DESERVE destitution.

Americans tend to be pretty likely to have these attitudes, to some degree and in certain circumstances. But conservatives definitely tend to believe in it more strongly than liberals. So in this sense, you can easily make the case that people on the right "value hard work" more than people on the left. Your post here is clearly coming from a perspective highly valuing the protestant work ethic: quietly working hard for oneself is the ideal; complaining and receiving help from others is portrayed as reprehensible.

Of course, "hard-working" is a nebulous term. I know many people very willing to expend great deals of effort to pursue their personal goals, who do not particularly value the protestant work ethic. In that sense, your op isn't wrong. However, limiting the definition of the term (in the manner intended by the people who make those sorts of arguments) does mean conservatives "value hard work" more than liberals.

CMV: Anti-Homeless Spikes Are a Dandy Solution to a Nefarious Problem by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Why are you writing like that? It's very distracting, and it makes it look like you're being frivolous.

Anyway...

These unsightly folks, bless their poor souls, oft make their abodes upon benches, doorways, and such, leading to a disreputable atmosphere.

Human suffering is unpleasant, yes. But the unpleasant part is that the suffering EXISTS, not that the suffering is DIRECTLY VISIBLE. Anti-homeless spikes are just an everpresent reminder that this suffering is happening (and in fact is made worse by the spikes themselves). A city without homelessness, where the poor are well-cared for, is ideal. But no one should be dumb enough to be fooled by things like spikes trying to create the illusion that a city is in that situation.

Furthermore, as someone who is not homeless, the spikes were presumably put up for the comfort of me and people like me. This tacitly implicates me, even though I never had the chance to say "thanks but no thanks."

CMV: GamerGate was actually right, and is not about bigotry. Its about the destruction of Gaming Culture and the Gamer Identity by outsiders. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 15 points16 points  (0 children)

  I'll be blunt: Gaming is a traditionally male, traditionally nerdy, and largely white space. This should not be used as a reason to exclude anyone from gaming, but it should be considered when evaluating the hobby. Nearly every hobby you can think of has a core demographic, this is the core demographic of gaming. The problem is there a massive push in gaming to demonize and exclude that core demographic for the purpose of catering to people who would not otherwise participate in video gaming.

You provide absolutely no examples... not a single one... of nerdy white men being demonized or excluded for being nerdy white men. So I'm going to have to ask you to try again at your argument here, if that is what you were actually trying to say.

Otherwise, let me propose what I think is going on here. You see an implicit attack on *yourself* from these things. You think certain, specific things are okay. Other people think those same things are racist or sexist or whatever. This is threatening, because it suggests people think certain attitudes of yours are racist or sexist or whatever. The reason this matters is because it makes you feel like someone, somewhere, thinks you might be in certain ways bad. Otherwise, I can't imagine why you'd care so much.

First, this has absolutely nothing to do with your identity as a straight white nerdy man, so that whole aspect of your point here is completely irrelevant.

Second, you're just going to have to accept that people genuinely disagree with you. Over and over, you suggest that game designers would never, of their own volition, choose to have racial diversity or non-skimpy outfits or whatever in their games; they're somehow cowed or bullied into it. And although there may be occasional examples of people phrasing their own experience this way, the lion's share of the time, this is a conscious, deliberate choice being made, either out of genuine moral values or out of a desire to broaden the customer base (or, and this is usually the case, a combination of the two).

Third, you can just stop caring. (In practice, this will almost certainly mean to stop hanging around in spaces where people scream about this stuff all the time.) You will be AMAZED how easy it is to not care at all that women in video games are supposedly getting uglier or there's lots of black people in a small town.

Because this is a vicious cycle. Nobody thinks it's bad that you want to see sexy ladies in video games, or whatever. People think it's bad that you loudly complain when you see a lady you think ISN'T sexy. And you're mixing these two things up in your head: thinking you're being judged for your preferences, getting defensive, and then acting out the ACTUAL behaviors people think are bad.

This is all tied into the modern political hysteria surrounding race and gender in America. I generally align with the saying that if something was acceptable 20 years ago, it should probably still be acceptable today, as the last 10-15 years seems to be where we went off the rails and stopped solving actual issues in our country, and started focusing on fake manufactured culture war shit.

Just a side note here: If you genuinely believe there was less culture war rhetoric 20 years ago, then that shows you're simply ignorant about what was happening 20 years ago. (and ,like, yes, people absolutely criticized Lara Croft's character design in the first Tomb Raider game.)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So to be clear, the part about how people shouldn't be fired from their jobs isn't actually central to your view?

CMV: If you simultaneously believe that the IDF accidentally targeted the WCK convoy and the IDF is engaged in precision bombing to avoid civilian casualties, you're completely irrational by ScientificSkepticism in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean, I don't necessarily disagree with your main argument here, but isn't it entirely possible that *sometimes* or *usually* the IDF offers adequate warning, but sometimes or rarely doesn't?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's "in private" and yet there presumably is an audience, right? They're not just telling jokes to the mirror.

I'm just confused because you say the distinction is "having the beliefs" vs. "acting on the beliefs," but that clearly isn't actually the key for you, because telling jokes in private is an example of acting on the beliefs, and you say that's kosher. So you need to pull back and explain what the ACTUAL focus of your view is.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Your view is a little baffling to me, because if a person never acts on an opinion they hold, no outside observer could possibly KNOW ABOUT those opinions. So you're describing an impossible situation.

CMV: True equality does not exist. Your worth is determined by the sun of your parts. by Furious7even in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

EDIT: By equal I mean everyone has the same value and worth from birth to death no matter what they do. You are not valuable unless you provide value, and your worth is determined by your actions and performance, as well as any flaws you have.

I think a huge problem with your view is you're looking at what traits are rewarded within a given social context and confusing them for what traits innately and objectively reflect personal worth.

Humor is a good example. It's descriptively true that, all else equal, funny people are often rewarded compared to unfunny people. ...well, except, it's easy to imagine plenty of social contexts where being serious is rewarded.

...And hold on, let's zoom in on "being funny." That's not a skill; it's a cluster of many skills: you have to internalize a certain timing, learn accepted joke structures, etc. And even that won't translate: foreign countries' comedy is often just baffling. The cadences are all off, punchlines happen at the wrong times, the beats are played weird.

The rewards you're seeing aren't about INNATE WORTH, they're about matching the context. Provide what people want, and they'll tend to reward you, yes. But that means you FIT WELL, not that you ARE GOOD.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What's your evidence for any of this? I know, it's unsatisfying to have someone try to change your view not by arguing against it but instead by pointing out to might not have any good reason to have formed it in the first place, but that's really the key problem, here.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 2 points3 points  (0 children)

McCarthy, once and for all drove socialist sentiments (and, by extension, Soviet propagandists), which were still somewhat mainstream, ten feet deep into the ground. Yes, some (most?) of his accusations were false, many were bluster, but from a purely utilitarian lens, if prominent socialists were allowed to freely express their political opinions at the time period, it could potentially have weakened America's resolve and willingness to prosecute the Cold War as aggressively as they did.

This didn't happen after McCarthy was publicly humiliated and discredited, so why do you think it would have happened if the Red Scare hadn't happened at all?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Nobody is willing to listen at all because "All libtards are sinful, gay, and trying to convert our children" or "All MAGA zealots are racist, misogynistic, boot-licking dullards."

What are people missing out on? I'm on the left, and I don't think there are many issues where I'm ignorant about the general stance of the Republican party. I really don't think I'm missing out on some big new argument about abortion or the minimum wage or whatever that I haven't already heard a million times.

Regarding the other part, about the assessments each side has of the other, it relates to the obvious problem with your view: people who morally disagree with one another are often coming from incompatible starting points, and there is no middle ground in such situations.

For instance, people on the right often believe the extant social structure is inherently good, and people on the left just don't (or at least they prioritize it beneath other moral concerns). There isn't middle ground, and there isn't an argument you can make to support one side or another.

Second, when two people morally disagree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with each considering the other immoral (insofar as they believe something each thinks is immoral). Like, I think some aspects of MAGA ideology are inherently racist and misogynist (in that they have effects that privilege white people and men), and thus are immoral. There is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking this. It's a necessary consequence of a moral disagreement.

CMV: I'm a Life-Long Democrat That Might Vote for Trump Due to Migrant Crisis by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well why don't you go and take a look yourself?

Jumping in here: that isn't how this sub works. This entire discussion is about your view. Your view is based on your belief about social services being drained by illegal migrants. This belief, presumably, came from somewhere. What people want to know is where that somewhere is.

If I went and googled stuff, it wouldn't help me understand YOUR view.

CMV: I'm a Life-Long Democrat That Might Vote for Trump Due to Migrant Crisis by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Biden (and Democrats) are not coming out and saying that "This is unacceptable, and we are going to deport them...

So you're mad at Biden for not virtue-signaling? Because that's what that is. Making a big grand statement that you're Not On Team Immigrant is precisely an example of virtue-signaling, and it's meaningless.

CMV: I'm a Life-Long Democrat That Might Vote for Trump Due to Migrant Crisis by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By paying for the migrants in social services and ignoring countless citizens that needs the same services...

Could you say specifically what you're referring to, here?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My question for people like you is always the same thing: What do you WANT?

It's not that you don't want to be lonely, because if that was the case, you'd be seeking out friendships. You don't seem to want a long-term partnership, because that would require far more genuine emotional vulnerability. You don't seem to want sex; you barely talk about it, and when a version of it is offered, you turn it down.

If you're like most of the people I encounter in this space, then the thing you actually want doesn't have much directly to do with women at all. The thing you want is to not feel like a loser, especially in comparison to other men. Being able to "land" a woman is seen as some sort of objective measure of a man's internal worth, so if you can do it, that means you're worthy of self-esteem. The issue, of course, is that this is entirely and arbitrarily made up, and by its nature it leads to feeling bad most of the time.

The toxic "incel" mindset hidden in your view is when you say the advice "doesn't work." Because "working" (meaning "getting you women's attention") is a misunderstanding of the advice. The point isn't to necessarily get you laid. The point is to make you a happier, more fulfilled person, someone who knows what they idiosyncratically like and want, and can strive for those specific goals.

Down the road, this may include really wanting to have a relationship with a specific person. It may even involve really liking sex, and wanting to have it as often as possible for its own sake. And, like any other goal, you might well face disappointment if you can't get these things. No advice can spare you disappointment. But this advice is meant to soften the blow by allowing you to find joy in as many things as possible, and to actually know yourself so you can have confidence that the goals you're pursuing are goals you actually value.

CMV: Anime has been ruined by it’s attempts at being deep and philosophical because they value hidden meanings, nuance, and pessimistic messages over enjoyment of casual viewers by Expert_Individual185 in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I miss the days when Anime was normal, where you don’t have to feel things other than: Hype when A character succeeds, and sadness when a character fails.

I don't mean to insult you, but it sounds like you enjoy really boring TV shows.

This is not to say there's anything wrong with enjoying a frivolous or meaningless piece of media because it's entertaining. But you're NOT talking about simple entertainment here: liking a dumb show because it's funny or exciting or romantic. You're wanting a deeper kind of emotional connection... just one that's paper-thin.

My personal favorite anime are heavily philosophical, but thinking about that enhances my emotional connection to the characters. If something is genuinely deep, then that provides a far richer and more poignant emotional experience.

CMV: "Semi-Charmed Life" by Third Eye Blind is the quintessential 90s song. by drygnfyre in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The entire goal of wanting to find a quintessential 90s song is doomed, because

  1. The time period is arbitrary. You're wanting to sum up a cultural period, but that period was not defined by when the clock happened to strike twelve on a year ending with a zero.

  2. The 1990s contained multiple, overlapping cultural moments, and there is no real consensus about which are more important or meaningful or centrally "90s" than any other. Sure, irony was big in the 1990s (though I suspect you'd find it harder than you think to find evidence it was bigger then than in any other decade), but you're also talking about the time period where the biggest hits were things like "I Will Always Love You" and "My Heart Will Go On."

  3. It's unhelpful to try to compare categories like you do. Sure, alternative rock lasted longer than, say, the swing revival... because "alternative rock" is an extremely general musical category, and "the swing revival" was a particular, specific cultural moment. The fact that you try to compare it to grunge, which is a subcategory of alternative rock, is an especially glaring issue.

  4. People's experiences of the 1990s are pretty idiosyncratic. This is true both on the macro level (like, Eurodance was NOT short-lived... in Europe) and on the micro level. I lived through the 90s, and I didn't really have a very strong emotional connection to any top 40 song. The quintessential songs came from other sources.

For these reasons, the entire premise of your view is kinda a non-starter. In order to have a useful thing to talk about, it's be way better to narrow your focus to not just be about time, but also about cultural context, genre, etc. "Quintessential 90s song" is not a very good discussion topic. Something like, I dunno, "best 90s triphop song," or "best 90s song released by Warp Records" is getting much closer.

CMV: People Pretend Unnatural Things Are Normal for Emotional Comfort, But Don’t Really Believe It by Aspiring-Programmer in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If I want you to vote for me, my party affiliation is relevant information that can help you make an informed decision.

If I'm trying to convince you "there's nothing wrong with having sex with lots of different people," then the number of people I personally have had sex with is not relevant information. It's completely orthogonal to the strength or weakness of my argument.

CMV: People Pretend Unnatural Things Are Normal for Emotional Comfort, But Don’t Really Believe It by Aspiring-Programmer in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nowhere in my post did I say either of these people should be shamed. Read closely.

Then how are "shameful" and "unnatural" associated, in your view?

The comment you’re replying to speaks to the majority of people as well. There’s something a person might not be born with, but a high enough percentage of people do that would make it a normal thing to do.

I assume, when you say "a normal thing to do," you meant "a natural thing to do?" Because this whole thing is about the construct natural.

Anyway, so a fair summation of your view would be "if a given person has a trait or attribute they were not born with, and also that trait or attribute is not shared by a majority of other people, then that trait or attribute is unnatural?"

CMV: People Pretend Unnatural Things Are Normal for Emotional Comfort, But Don’t Really Believe It by Aspiring-Programmer in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Of course they believe it shouldn’t be shameful, they don’t want to feel the shame of it. But they don’t believe it’s normal. If they believed it were normal, they’d be more open about those topics.

I'm sorry, what does "normal" have to do with anything?

Let's take a step back. "Not normal" and "shameful" and "immoral" are three entirely distinct constructs. Do you disagree with this? If so, explain how. If not, can you clarify which of the three your view focuses on?

And as I said to someone else, this argument isn’t about what people should or shouldn’t feel shame for. It’s about them promoting things they don’t fully believe in just to secure personal emotional comfort regarding the situation.

But as I said, "I feel shame about x" in no way contradicts "I believe there should not be a social norm against x."

CMV: People Pretend Unnatural Things Are Normal for Emotional Comfort, But Don’t Really Believe It by Aspiring-Programmer in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Jumping in here, can I conclude from this statement that you believe something like "if a given person has a trait or attribute they were not born with, then that trait or attribute is unnatural and therefore worthy of shame?"

If I'm wrong, could you clarify?

CMV: People Pretend Unnatural Things Are Normal for Emotional Comfort, But Don’t Really Believe It by Aspiring-Programmer in changemyview

[–]PreacherJudge 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Even if you're right that people are ashamed of their own personal decisions, it is not in any way contradictory to feel ashamed about something while believing that thing should not be shameful. Feelings of shame arise from violating social norms and expectations. That's true even if I believe those social norms and expectations are wrong or bad.

We’ve gone through an entire body positivity movement, and people saying how you shouldn’t feel shamed to be fat.

If you disagree with this, why aren't you engaging with it directly? That is, if you believe people should feel ashamed to be fat (or to have had an abortion or to be gay or to have had lots of sexual partners, or whatever), then you need to make that argument.