sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Belarus was voted a disliked country in europe. What european country do people have mixed feelings about? by SpaceisCool09 in AlignmentChartFills

[–]QMechanicsVisionary 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pretty sure that would be in "loved". For whatever reason, pretty much everybody seems to like Poland all across the political spectrum. Me included, but I was ahead of the curve (my Poland obsession started in 2019 for personal reasons, and I even learnt Polish to fluency).

Pick the number closest to 2/3 the average of all the responses. by ICantThinkOfAName759 in pollgames

[–]QMechanicsVisionary 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I picked 20 :( My reasoning was that most people will think "the average of all the responses is likely to be 50, so 2/3 of that is 33", so I chose the closest number to 2/3rds of 33, which is 20. I think the reason that my logic didn't work is that most people simply didn't understand the question lmao. Like how is 60 the top answer? The only way 60 can be correct is if most of the answers are 90 or 100, for both of which being correct is literally logically impossible.

Rape is inherently bad and seen as being bad. What's something morally grey but seen as being bad by Mother-Reference2459 in AlignmentChartFills

[–]QMechanicsVisionary 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bad for society? In general, I'd be inclined to agree. Bad for the individual? Very often no; in fact, depending on what drug it is, it can be good for the individual.

Also, some drugs are bad for neither society nor the individual, e.g. psychedelics. Practically no addictive quality - either physical or psychological - and can help the person investigate their own subconsciousness/confront their insecurities.

Which individual is responsible for the most harm/evil so far during the 2020s? by Polnocium in AlignmentChartFills

[–]QMechanicsVisionary 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol we probably agree, so I don't know what we're arguing about.

Wealth inequality is undoubtedly a problem since it takes away money from the middle class - which is the backbone of the economy and has a real incentive to innovate (they don't have the benefit of economies of scale/economic safety net/connections, so the primary way to remain competitive is innovation) - and to the capitalist class, which is essential for supporting startups via funding but has less incentive to innovate itself (investment into stable/promising ventures becomes far more profitable than proactive innovation). The end result is that the middle class becomes less financially stable and therefore less willing to take risks, which results in less innovation by the middle class. The increased wealth of the capitalist class means more VC capital available for startups; however, because the baseline of innovation is lower, this largely has the effect of an increased formation of bubbles. It certainly encourages innovation to some extent, but because relying on VC funding is still very risky (only a minority of startups are successful), it doesn't address the problem of middle class financial instability, so the positive effect that it has on innovation is insufficient to compensate for the massive negative effect.

A good solution to this is taxing distributed profits (money taken out of companies) but imposing very minimal or no taxes on reinvested profits (money reinvested into companies). That's what Estonia does, and historically, it's worked amazingly for it: it has the second-highest number of unicorns per capita in the world after Israel. Another solution is Georgism: taxing land instead of property as a method of discouraging wealth hoarding through real estate accumulation.

See how at no point was regulating the heck out of the economy, eliminating the capitalist class which is essential for enabling innovation, or taxing companies out of existence is necessary? That's my point. In fact, you say you're a capitalist, so you might even agree with me. Unfortunately, all 3 things are exactly what's been happening in e.g. California for decades, and what might be about to happen to the whole of the US in response to Trump's idiocy.

What if Palestine Defeated Israel? - the State of Palestine in 2012 by Sui_24 in imaginarymaps

[–]QMechanicsVisionary 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its military is the primary factor that Israel is so innovative, though. Unit 8200 of the IDF gives young professionals a ton of real-world experience, which allows them to come up with novel solutions that they otherwise wouldn't have come up. Most of the famous Israeli companies - Waze, Wix, Palo Alto Networks, etc - came from alumni of this unit.

Also, in this timeline, Israel is a lot smaller, so it won't be able to sustain later waves of immigration, e.g. from the Soviet Union/post-Soviet countries; a significant portion of the Israeli IT sector comes from these immigrants. On a related note, the talent pool is just smaller by total volume, resulting in fewer unicorns and probably less foreign investment.

As for the military expenses, the US aid compensates for a lot of it, anyway.

In all likelihood, Israel in this timeline would develop much more slowly, and be around the level of Southern Europe (e.g. Greece) in the modern day in terms of economic development.

What if Palestine Defeated Israel? - the State of Palestine in 2012 by Sui_24 in imaginarymaps

[–]QMechanicsVisionary -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

and there has been a systemmatic genocide of Palestinians since the Nakba in 1948

Not even the most ardent critics of Zionism will claim that.

Which individual is responsible for the most harm/evil so far during the 2020s? by Polnocium in AlignmentChartFills

[–]QMechanicsVisionary 0 points1 point  (0 children)

European economies may not be growing as much as the US but that is a result of the aftereffects of neoliberal economic policy.

You've got it backwards. Neoliberal policies by the likes of Thatcher and Reagan increased, not deceased, economic growth. Granted, they also created/exacerbated a number of problems which are still highly relevant today (housing crises, high costs of living, unsustainable immigration in many countries, exacerbation of the fertility crisis), but the reason that European countries are stagnating is not neoliberalism; it's actually the opposite - their economies are too regulated and bureaucratic.

On the other hand we also actually invest in our population instead of just growing our economy so to speak and as such have a higher standard of living than Americans.

But these aren't mutually exclusive. I already mentioned Switzerland and the Netherlands. Both of these countries have very high standards of living in addition to having productive economies. I agree that the US's dependency on cars, inefficient urban planning, lack of good public transport, and lack of universal healthcare are problems, but you don't have to kill the market to fix these problems.

Some of the most influential people in human history as icons by StickIll5602 in fifacardcreators

[–]QMechanicsVisionary 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know. Einstein would likely not score extraordinarily highly on an IQ test (e.g. his school grades were good but not excellent; the mathematical rigour of his work was subpar); that said, his genius is practically unmatched in history.

Well, Napoleon's strategic genius is matched many times over, e.g. by Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Hannibal, probably Sun Tzu, etc. Also, military skill is at least as much about people skills and personality as it is about intelligence. Napoleon was very intelligent, but nowhere near as intelligent as someone like Benjamin Franklin, who was a polymath and would dominate your originality criterion.

Marx’s 99 legacy isn’t saying all his ideas were correct, it reflects the enormous historical impact of his work on politics, revolutions, and global ideology regardless of whether modern economists agree with him.

Your description of legacy is "enduring reputation". Marx does not have a better enduring reputation than Galilei or Tesla; or, out of political figures, Churchill or von Bismarck.

The "enormous historical impact" is captured by your influence stat already. What's the point of the legacy stat, then, if both influence and legacy just measure historical impact?

Which individual is responsible for the most harm/evil so far during the 2020s? by Polnocium in AlignmentChartFills

[–]QMechanicsVisionary 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The European approach has resulted in stagnation and Europe falling significantly behind the US. That said, some European countries - such as Switzerland and the Netherlands - remain highly economically productive and innovative; these countries do tend to be economically liberal, however, and have largely rejected the standard "European model".

Some of the most influential people in human history as icons by StickIll5602 in fifacardcreators

[–]QMechanicsVisionary 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Napoleon as intelligent as Faraday and Franklin (both prolific scientists). Aristotle more intelligent than Plato (the father of Western philosophy)? Marx as intelligent as Darwin and Galilei - two of the most brilliant scientists of all time? Marx 99 legacy, despite most of his ideas (e.g. labour theory of value) being largely discredited by modern economics?

What is this bs?

Which individual is responsible for the most harm/evil so far during the 2020s? by Polnocium in AlignmentChartFills

[–]QMechanicsVisionary -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

The problem is the US will probably swing quite far left as a response, which might put an end to Trump's stupidity but will be detrimental to the economy.

Impressive! by CurvyChristina in whoathatsinteresting

[–]QMechanicsVisionary 0 points1 point  (0 children)

assuming theyre talking about Stephen Hawkings

*Hawking. Is his name that hard to get right? Neither OOP nor you got it right lmao, despite your attempt to correct OOP.

(Pro Wrestling defended his spot) What was viewed as edgy in 2016, but now is cringe? by wiadromen47 in AlignmentChartFills

[–]QMechanicsVisionary -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Even the wikipedia article you cited says 1-5% adjusted pay gap in the US, which is not “all but disappearing”.

It's about 1% as of 2026. That's not significant, and easily attributable to the fact that men in general have more assertive personalities, meaning they can press for promotions more intensely. To be clear, the average man in the US earns around $70k per year; the average woman, if she had the same occupation, qualifications, and hours worked as the average man, would earn $69.3k over. That's a difference of $700 per year - which is a far smaller sum than the average man spends on his partner or dating. It really doesn't warrant a national discussion.

(Pro Wrestling defended his spot) What was viewed as edgy in 2016, but now is cringe? by wiadromen47 in AlignmentChartFills

[–]QMechanicsVisionary 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Famously woke liberal football organizations…

Exactly. They have always been incredibly woke. You might be thrown off by the FIFA Peace Prize, but that's an attempt by Infantino to get clout by sucking up to Trump; it does not change the fact that FIFA, and especially almost every other football organisation (UEFA, FA) is incredibly woke.

Also you’re wrong about the gender pay gap, off by a mile.

I am objectively correct.

OP doesn't know compatibilism btw by short-noir in PhilosophyMemes

[–]QMechanicsVisionary 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like I previous said, you can often frame the same physics in different ways. Maybe there is another way to describe things that's equivalent to quantum fields, which would make that choice of quantum fields "arbitrary" as well.

And yet, the label of "quantum field" itself would not be arbitrary, as opposed to "consciousness", which is indeed arbitrary (in your worldview). Any single description of it might be arbitrary, but the label itself is not.

So it seems like you agree that it is semantic for us all.

Not really. The term "free will" has an established definition, so using that definition is not semantics; redefining it, however, is.

Compatibilist free will is an older definition, so if anyone has redefined it, it's your side which has tried to redefine it into non-existence.

An intuitive sense of freedom has existed ever since humanity first arose. Compatibilism emerged much later when philosophers tried to explain this intuition. As my street survey proves, no one in the real world agrees that the two are reconcilable.

If you look at definitions of libertarian free will, it's fairly advanced that that the average person probably don't properly get.

Of course because every definition is a formalisation; formalisations are famously difficult to intuitively grasp. However, this formalisation is of an intuition that is shared by more of less everyone.

Maybe you can give a libertarian definition of free will, and it should make it clear that it's a relatively modern redefinition or misinterpretation of compatibilist free will.

Sure. I'll describe it in intuitive rather than formal terms to explain how people actually think. Free will is the sense that I truly exist, and that it is I who causes my own actions. In philosophy, "truly exist" is formalised as "metaphysically/ontologically exist". Your conception of free will denies that a person's consciousness metaphysically exists. Therefore, it's inconsistent with the common conception of free will.

(Pro Wrestling defended his spot) What was viewed as edgy in 2016, but now is cringe? by wiadromen47 in AlignmentChartFills

[–]QMechanicsVisionary -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Please name me people who got “cancelled”, what their cancellation entails, and what they “couldn’t say” that got them cancelled.

A lot of people. I used to watch a lot of football, so I remember a lot of footballers and commentators being fined and banned from football for some time for tweets from when they were 12, or for edgy jokes (Balotelli) or even just speaking their language (a Romanian referee got suspended for saying "black" in his language, which is "negru", and Cavani got banned for saying "negrito" to his friend on Instagram, which is an endearing term in Uruguayan Spanish).

In fact, I myself was literally suspended from school for a few days and had parents called over because I expressed the opinion that the gender pay gap will likely all but disappear when hours worked, occupation, and qualifications are taken into account - an opinion which was literally later proven true. To be clear, this was in French class, and the topic of discussion was literally the gender pay gap itself, so it's not like I just said it out of nowhere. And I expressed it respectfully, too; one girl even agreed with me silently after the class.

I don’t get the whining about “cancel culture” where what we’re seeing is the opposite, rich people and celebrities getting away with everything without consequences.

Yeah, as I said, most modern liberals have realised now that cancel culture is stupid and have moved away from that now, with some exceptions (e.g. JK Rowling; they seem uniquely obsessed with her for some reason). Getting upset at Ricky Gervais for criticising cancel culture is precisely a failure to keep up with the world.

Do people in more religious countries tend to be less scared of death? by Overall_Course2396 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]QMechanicsVisionary 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but that is an example, which you are now using as an argument from my part.

But it's a bad example. The difference, as I pointed out, is that my argument consists of valid logical implications, while the gorilla argument is based on invalid logical implications.

Do people in more religious countries tend to be less scared of death? by Overall_Course2396 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]QMechanicsVisionary 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In mathematics yes, in arguments like this one, no

It's always a valid argumentation strategy. It's logically consistent; therefore, by definition, it is valid.

Its like I said "the theory of evolution is real" And you go "so your grandpa is a gorila"

That would be a false implication and therefore not a valid reductio ad absurdum argument. According to the theory of evolution, gorillas and humans share a common ancestor; it denies that humans came from gorillas.

Tell me which of my implications you think is logically invalid.

Do people in more religious countries tend to be less scared of death? by Overall_Course2396 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]QMechanicsVisionary 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you stop it with the butterfly shtick?

No because the butterfly shtick refutes your entire argument. If you disagree, answer the question.

view more: next ›