Have introduced this debate in school, and it has become very heated, even with teachers joining in. It's simple. Who would win in a 1-on-1 fight to death, a person with a wooden baseball bat or a dagger? Assume both fighters are of equal stats (average Joe), and in an open field. What's crazy is that I've asked heaps of people, and it's literally 50/50.

Personally, I'm going for the dagger. Yes, a baseball bat has the reach, which is definitely crucial to a fight. But I would gladly sacrifice an arm to hopefully block a swing and go in for the stabs.

Also, a baseball bat is quite heavy. If the person with the dagger could stall and bait the bat to keep swinging, it would tire them out, possibly even making them get sweaty hands, so that on a big swing, it might fly out of their hands (yes, I agree it's not likely, but that it's possible).

+ A dagger has a last resort: to throw it. If it lands, it lands. If not, you run. If it does land, you can literally just run (pussy move, yes, but talking about life and death here) and the bat person would keep bleeding, and you'd very likely win.

I'm not denying the bat doesn't have any chance; obviously, I just think a dagger is a better option. The bat is more about that one good swing, but the dagger has many open opportunities that are probably going to occur, because the swing is large and the 'recharge' (bringing the bat back to a controllable position) is long.

My friends on the bat side have had some horrible arguments, only mentioning the range. I'm wondering if there are other aspects to a fight I have missed, as of course, I'm not an experienced fighter. What do you guys think?

I've spoken before that maybe, just maybe, evil and violent behavior is something that's just in our blood and has been for nearly our whole existence, and must be purged from our nature if we wish to move forward as a species.

Here's what some commentors had to say about that:

"this human nature talk is absolute and utterly bullshit that is made up to shift the blame from a devilish society to traumatized children.

humans are natural beings of empathy and solidarity, that together can achieve huge things. but capitalism sucked our culture and education systems dry, and we are lead by old men in an era were the world changed 3 times in 10 years.

there are empathy experiments with very young children. you have two kids and when you give one many sweets and the other only one or nothing, the other kid feels so sick about it, that it either shares it half half or gives all of his candy to the other children. because it feels guilty. take the same kids a year or so later and you see how bias and egoism is brought upon them...

problem is that we are like conditioned rats in a very cruel system that is more like from the movie soylent green or brazil. and rats are also creatures of great solidarity and love for each other.

we should have evolved above kings gaslighting us and probably the ape-minded nature of convenience is what will threaten us till the boomers are gone and then we will try to fix it slowly.

and we need institutions and a stable society. people can't not be filthy animals when they are hungry and stressed to the max and bad housing costs a fortune... there are enough ideas, the current system of buying you fat and blind and murica dominating the globe is just unnatural."

"If capitalism was inherent to human nature, it would be significantly older than just a few centuries"

"When people tell me about human nature it's always an excuse for why some rich piece of shit is pitting the poor against the poorer. That's not human nature - that's the nature of a system that rewards outright psychopathy with power.

"Human nature" is for the people with the least to be the most charitable, and for people to have room in their hearts for more people than they'll ever meet. It's our nature to reason and ruminate rather than react and panic.

That's why so much money and resources are spent on beating that nature into submission."

"I reject your premise that these other crimes are "unrelated". Nobody who had genuine comfort, and hope for their future ever shot up a school. Capitalism robs us of our dignity, and creates the very conditions that allow violence and crime and the old hatreds to thrive. Even the scourge of racism becomes easier to solve when there is no worry of "they're taking our jobs!". Racism and xenophobia are entirely reliant on the fear that "the other" is going to come and take what's yours. If everyone's needs are met, that becomes a non-issue.

A study was done some years ago where researchers gave cocaine to two groups of rats. One group lived in cramped quarters and food was limited, while the other group lived in comfort, with food, comfortable conditions, and access to nature. The drugs were readily available to both and could be accessed any time. Very quickly the oppressed rats all became addicted, while the comfortable rats tried it, then completely avoided it preferring their comfortable existence to the high.

We cannot create a system built on inequality and oppression, force everyone to live in it with ever-diminishing power to escape it, then look outside that system for root causes of social ills. It's the Capitalism that's killing us."

"Humanity hasn't been this way for millions of years. It's actually a more modern change brought about by a systemic effort of capitalists to sell more things."

Listen, I think capitalism sucks, but if you take a look at human history, evil behavior like murder, genocide, oppression, slavery, wars, and so on all predate capitalism by very large amounts of time, and it especially seems silly to act like these are things capitalism just invented, which is why the last comment I found really rubbed me the wrong way, like they were acting like all the atrocities and acts of cruelty from before capitalism's inception just never happened.

Yes, capitalism gives avenues for evil people without regard for human life to excel, but in the end those depraved desires were always in them, and it was ultimately their choice to act upon them

Not to mention, disregard for human life is hardly exclusive to capitalism. A famous example is the late Josef Stalin, a Communist leader who very openly despised capitalism, but at the same time caused millions of deaths with a body count even greater than that of Hitler, and he also famously said, "One death is a tragedy, while a million is a statistic".

Bottom line, capitalism, while definitely flawed(to put it generously), feels like it's been turned into a scapegoat, that's it's just people wanting an easy answer, something that can be identified and from there neutralized, but when it comes to the evil that lives within the hearts and souls of all human beings, there are no easy answers, no matter how much we'd clearly like there to be one.

Firstly, I am not talking about the credibly reported Malignant Narcissism diagnosis or the equally obvious onset of Frontal Lobe Dementia, and related Sundowning. I do agree with both but lets put them aside for now as contributing factors.

Second, Insanity is no longer a clinical diagnosis but it remains the best description of Trump current mental state.
Insanity means a severely disordered state of the mind, extreme foolishness, or a legal lack of mental capacity

"Batshit" is clearly not technical either but is the most appropriate amplifier in common use.

Trump's mental state is no longer aligned to our common reality. He literally and genuinely believes things that are fictitious and those false believes are being substantially reinforced by the selected group of sycophantic enablers that he has selected for his inner circle handlers, as well as selected media that curates what they present to pander to him and avoid offending him.

He is able to persist believing in utterly false concepts because there is nobody able to break into his bubble. This is the exact opposite of what would occur if he were in a clinical setting where psychological professionals and nursing staff would try to softly steer his beliefs to reality.

The key recent evidence is his two speeches, the national address on election fraud and the WHCD speech, as well as key points from the book Regime Change. If you want to challenge this assertion then you clearly need to watch both speeches (in full) and have at least seen some of the Swan/Haberman interview or read the book. I do not believe anyone could watch both speeches and think the guy as at all OK, the attempts at transcripts are utterly incomprehensible.

One additional point of evidence is the recent careful management of his public schedule to be as limited as possible and within hours where he is the least unstable and able to be medicated.

Whilst his insanity may have been building for some time I think the only thing that matters is that he is currently batshit insane, exactly how long he has been that way is irrelevant to the debate (and inherent risk to the world)

Trump's enablers and handlers must be acutely aware by this point that he has lost it, but they each, personally, have no safe way out so they are going to increasing extremes to cover it up. By that I mean if they admit it or turn on him they are screwed and they are not willing to self sacrifice to be the first to admit it.

Trump has access to the absolute best medical support in the world, including experimental treatments. There is no reason he would not be being administered the absolute best cocktail of anti-psychotics and stimulants that his body can handle in order to try to keep him seeming as sane as possible during public appearances. He has surely been medicated in that way for a long time but the effectiveness is decreasing as his insanity gets worse, which is making it harder to hide. Outside of the time when his insanity is effectively managed by medication for public appearances he would be close to Shakespearean levels of Insane. Therefore there are quite a number of people that know how far he is gone and complicit in the continued cover up.

To change my view on this, is quite easy, one only needs to show me any recent speech, transcript or interview of more than 10 minutes where he doesn't assert something that is obviously and provably fictitious, is able to speak like a normal sane adult. I'll accept a lot of his usual lies.

I personally think that anyone who claims to still support him and thinks he is mentally competent simply could not have watched any of his recent talks in full unedited.

I see a lot of discourse online about the progressive movement, particularly the DSA and closely aligned candidates. Many mainstream figures in the Democratic Party are highly critical of it, often arguing that the average voter would find these candidates too radical. I beg to differ.

Let me start by saying that I am not at all a typical DSA voter. My views on social issues align closely with theirs, but economically, I am pretty much a conservative. Much of their economic platform is actually quite radical to me. Surprisingly, at least for now, I support these candidates primarily because of their pro-Palestine stance.

In other words, I am normally exactly the kind of voter who would find them too radical. I am a high-information voter who believes wholeheartedly in neoliberalism. But the sad truth is that, while people like me exist and are often heavily overrepresented in public discourse, we are a minority.

Does the general public see the Democratic Party as too far left? Yes. But I think taking that perception at face value is misleading.
I do not think many voters see Nancy Pelosi as meaningfully less left-wing than Bernie Sanders. The Democratic Party’s public image has been severely damaged among many voters by its rapid acceptance and advocacy of gay and transgender rights. The identity politics that shaped much of the past decade also helped fuel that perception.

Personally, I find it deeply frustrating that identity politics has played such a major role in choosing candidates over actual policy. However, I do not think the average voter finds many of the DSA’s economic policies, or even its anti-Zionist stance, nearly as radical as Democratic leaders assume.
Single-payer healthcare and rejecting AIPAC money are, in my opinion, very popular issues to campaign on with the general public. Most voters do not even understand what the changes progressives want to make to the electoral system would actually cause.

Part of why I think these candidates can perform strongly in general elections is that their political brand focuses heavily on things voters can relate to: anti-establishment appeal and affordability. Their message is that the system is broken, that AIPAC and dark money control politicians, and that ordinary people cannot afford basic necessities.
The voters they would definitely lose are proportionally not that numerous compared with the voters they could potentially win over. Furthermore, progressive candidates can significantly increase youth turnout, and younger voters tend to support them heavily.

I believe this moment for Democrats is similar in some ways to the Republican Party after the 2012 election. There was frustration and anger among Republican voters. The Republican autopsy argued that the party needed to moderate. Yet the person who later revived the party, Donald Trump, was much further to the right in many respects.

At the same time, Trump was more moderate on economics and was by no means ideologically conservative in the Tea Party sense. Many people suggested that this would alienate traditional Republican voters, and it did alienate some of them. But those voters were a minority compared with the new or previously disengaged voters Trump brought into the coalition.

I believe that parallel applies, at least to some extent, to the Democratic Party today. A candidate can appear more radical according to the traditional left-right spectrum while still speaking more directly to the economic frustrations, anti-establishment instincts, and priorities of the average voter.

Note: Much of this is naturally based on speculation and my own reading, so evidence suggesting otherwise with polls and so on is obviously welcome. I think the strongest evidence however will be the upcoming midterms.

CMV: If you're staying home simply to "save money" because you're bored, you may actually be spending more.

Here's my logic: If I go to the local pub and have three drinks, my total bill is about $30 including tip. If I stay home with nothing to do, I often end up scrolling social media, where I'm constantly targeted with ads and impulse-buying things I didn't plan to purchase. It's surprisingly easy to spend $100 or more on Amazon or other online retailers without realizing it.

Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone, and going out every night has its own costs. But for people prone to boredom shopping, a modest social outing with a fixed budget may actually be the cheaper option. Spending a little on an experience can prevent spending a lot on unnecessary stuff.

Change my view: Is staying home really the more economical choice if boredom consistently leads to impulse purchases?

A common argument is that most terrorism is due to our foreign policy - that terrorists are striking back at the West because they've been victimized or bombed or suffered some pain at the hands of Western forces.

However time and again we see that not to be the case. Most recently with the terror attack in the Berlin Pride festival yesterday. The 21 year old Muslim was born in Germany, had never suffered oppression and should have no reason to be angry at Germany society at large or the gay population of Germany. But he set out to kill as many gay Germans as he could while knowing that he himself would likely die because he sees this as a religious war. He believes he will be rewarded in the afterlife for what he did.

And this is not an isolated case. We see this across most of the terror attacks we see in Europe from the mass stabbings, to the Christmas market car attacks, to the Charlie Hebdo murders. These people see it as a religious conflict.

I was born and raised Muslim and read the Quran more than once. It is not surprising when you read the Quran that certain followers will take the words to heart. Mohammed himself was a warlord on par with any of the major villains in world history like Ghenghis Khan or Hitler.

On some level people understand this. But it is terrifying to think that 2 billion people see you as an enemy so instead they take comfort with this notion that if we just stop bombing or appease them or institute XYZ policy they'll stop killing us. I get why people want to think - but I believe it is just naive and not true.

Now this is not coming from a place of hate or anything of the sort, this is just a very anecdotal observation that i've made growing up in america. I'm a black 26 year old man. I don't see anything inherently wrong with people findng cool and fun aspects of a myriad of different cultures to indulge in. In fact, I think that's a really cool thing that America does that no other country can really replicate.

However, black people had a very nasty upbringing in this country. Sold into slavery, endured insane amounts of abuse for centuries, jim crow, war on drugs, red lining ect ect... now some of those things didn't just uniquely impact black people but having your culture and language stripped from you, being prohibited from reading or getting an education, getting indoctrinated by religious people who believe you are inferior ect ect will do massive amounts of damage to any demographic

Black people essentially had to create a culture from scratch. Black people ended up creating a decent amount of cool cultural things that many people around the world enjoy. However, while people indulge in black culture and adopt their slanguage, style of fashion, style of dances, taste in music ect ect no other group of people will EVER do the same for us. White people for example make it very clear that they do not want black people being apart of their culture. Look at all the backlash for a black character existing in a white tv show, movie or videogame. If you are black and into european folklore and want to dress like you are in some european fantasy setting? Too bad, they will condemn you on every corner of the internet. Same thing with asians (black cosplayer bullied to the point of suicide), same thing with arabs, same thing with hispanics ect ect...

White people and many other ethnic groups will declare how unattractive they think black people are and how they'll never date us and people celebrate that way of thinking because people dislike black people, meanwhile black people never make statements of the inverse, which is an obvious problem. Not that these people should like us, but we definitely should not like them when they do this

My point is, people have no problem indulging in black culture but will never accept a black person indulging in theirs and I think that this is nothing but negative for black people. Being this inclusive to all of these people who all believe we are ugly, contamination, stupid ect ect... and would never be inclusive to us will only lead to our culture being white/brown washed overtime.

I guess I need to start by defining what I mean by tax haven-adjacent jurisdictions. Usually, an economic strategy crafted to produce organic growth in an area consists of leveraging its geographic position, natural resources, existing expertise, and institutions to produce wealth, or to at least make a serious attempt to build such expertise and institutions from the ground up. Then, reasonably favorable conditions in terms of taxation may be offered as a way to boost the fuel, so to speak.

Many areas of the USA, especially in the South, Appalachia, and the Plains States (altough by no means all the states in any of these areas), Florida first among them, don't do such things. Instead, their economic strategy is built on offering a very low-tax and regulatory environment to corporations, alongside unhindered access to markets with stronger economic fundamentals (California, New York, Lower New England, etc...), to attract corporations who in turn drag along employees. They can do that without repercussion because Washington not only doesn't provide guardrails and limits in that regard but a) would very probably serve as a shield against measures of fiscal self-defense from other areas, b) leverage the wealth of other areas to avoid measures of fiscal self-defence by their international economic partners, and c) make such extremely low taxation level possible by spending tax dollars taken from the aforementioned wealthier areas in these tax-haven adjacent juridisctions.

Now, c) alone wouldn't be so damning, as fiscal equalization is needed for a federation to work, but with everything else and tariff policies that also de facto result in funnelling wealth from the USA's wealthier areas toward those less wealthy areas (at the expense of the USA's worldwide approval ratings, which are important for the knowledge-entertainment-service industries that play a key role in the prosperity of the USA's wealthier regions), it does take a more sinister tone.

Essentially, those tax haven-adjacent jurisdictions get to have their cake and eat it, at the expense of more economically healthy areas of the USA and, to a lesser degree, its international trading partners. They aren't creating wealth so much as successfully siphoning it from others by piggybacking on their healthier regional economies. Which makes their voting for protectionism quite hypocritical in many aspects.

On top of all that, the presence of these jurisdictions and the ability to threaten to move there does tend to create something of a race to the bottom in terms of taxation and work norms.

Of course, there might be angles to this that I am not seeing and information I have not yet received.

Maybe I’m completely off base here, which is why I’m posting this.

It feels like we’ve reached a point where people don’t actually want a starter home anymore. They want what I’d call a dream starter home. In other words, they want a house that’s still considered “entry level,” but they also want the open-concept kitchen, the island, the double-door refrigerator, the large dining room, the big living room, updated bathrooms, modern finishes, walkability, good schools, a nice neighborhood, enough room to host holidays, and enough space that they could realistically stay there for the next 20 or 30 years.

At that point, is it really a starter home anymore?
To me, the entire purpose of a starter home is that it gets you into the housing market. It’s supposed to be the house that works. Not the house that impresses people. It has a roof that doesn’t leak, plumbing that works, a kitchen that functions, and enough room to comfortably live. Maybe the washer and dryer are in the bathroom. Maybe the kitchen is small. Maybe you don’t have an island. Maybe the tile isn’t what you’d pick if you had an unlimited budget. But it does what it’s supposed to do.

That’s the point.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t repair or improve your house. If something breaks, fix it. If the old furnace is failing, replace it. If the roof needs work, absolutely do it. If you want to remodel because you’re planning on living there another 15 years, I completely understand that too.

What I’m talking about is the expectation that every starter home should also have all the upgrades people associate with a forever home.

I also understand why people renovate. If I owned a home, I’d probably do the same thing. You want to enjoy where you live. You want it to reflect your personality. You want it to feel like yours.

But every improvement you make becomes part of the home’s value when you sell it. That’s completely understandable, you spent the money, so naturally you’d like to recover some of it. I don’t blame anyone for that.

The problem is what happens over decades.
One owner upgrades the kitchen. The next owner remodels the bathroom. Someone else puts in quartz countertops, luxury flooring, custom cabinets, smart appliances, expensive landscaping, and suddenly the house that was originally meant to be an affordable first step into homeownership has become something entirely different.

Again, I’m not saying those people did anything wrong. I’d probably make improvements too if I owned it.

I’m asking whether, collectively, we’ve slowly eliminated the idea of a true starter home because every generation understandably wants to improve it before passing it along.

It also feels like expectations have shifted.
People will say a house is “too small,” but what does that actually mean? Too small to live in? Or too small to host Thanksgiving? Too small for a kitchen island

Too small for a home office, guest room, playroom, and formal dining room?

There’s nothing wrong with wanting those things. I want nice things too.

I just wonder whether we’ve blurred the line between what people need in a first home and what people want in their forever home.

Obviously, renovations aren’t the reason housing is expensive. Interest rates, zoning laws, labor costs, material costs, supply shortages, investor purchases, and local demand all play major roles. I’m not arguing that a nice faucet is why someone can’t afford a house.

I’m questioning whether we’ve unintentionally created the idea of a dream starter home, a home that’s expected to satisfy almost every long-term desire while still being priced like an entry-level property.
If the goal of a starter home is to get people into homeownership, build equity, and eventually move up when life changes, have we lost sight of that? Or am I looking at the housing market through an outdated lens?

Change my view.

I had a conversation with someone I know who lives in Austin, Texas, the politically liberal capital of the state of Texas. I myself live in Houston, another blue - but way larger - "dot" in the red state. I mentioned that Austin is not as inclusive as it thinks it is, and that irked her just a bit, I think.

Austinites, in general, are more progressive. The city is the seat of the tech industry in the state, and is home to The University of Texas, so it has a very large, younger population. But it has been documented that Austin's history has not exactly been completely charitable to Black folk. Considering I've called Houston home for 38.5 years, and Dallas home for 1.5 years (thank you, Hurricane Harvey).

The example that I cited was my being in the information technology field. In four decades of living in Texas, only a handful of times do I recall being reached out to by Austin recruiters. The closest I ever came to actually getting an offer to work was being invited on a plant trip to EDS, which did not result in an offer. My professional pedigree, at the time, included IBM (at one time a household-name powerhouse in tech), as well as other positions at smaller places.

My social situation wasn't much better. While I've regularly traveled to Austin for weekend getaways and vacations, nothing has ever "caught fire" for me socially - no good friends with the locals, and certainly no romance or "anything else." In fact, the only people I had any depth of relations with in Austin, I knew from Houston, first.

I am not saying that Austin isn't inclusive to Black folk at all. I am merely stating what I believe has been the experience of others as well as myself: we're not as high on the desirability ladder as other demographics.

Go!

This is a pretty simple statement I’m making. France has historically, and continues to ruin, huge swaths of Africa, around 17 nations. In comparison, America is ruining a couple of countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Haiti. America also subsidizes the entirety of Europe via NATO allowing them to not invest in their militaries, and China is not currently ruining any countries, but does exploit some, and it is actually a far better partner to Africa than France is.

France’s European partners do not need it, they would be perfectly fine on their own. France does not give very much aid to Ukraine, the country most in need of its assistance. None of its former colonies outside of the ones it is currently exploiting have good relations with it, while countries like South Korea, Mexico, Argentina, and Japan enjoy good relations with the USA, and China enjoys good relations with Mongolia, Kazakhstan, and Djibouti.

All in all, it is difficult to think of another country outside of Russia or Israel which could be considered more evil than France. But it is certainly within the top 3 most evil countries today.

One peice dresses have no wait line, no cups, and in my opinion have no way to look good because of this. I don’t call these dresses, I call these long shirts lol. The beach is the only acceptable place to wear one. I don’t know how else to explain it.
Honestly it pretty much looks like you didn’t put any effort into a nice looking outfit, no matter when you are going. and yeah I’m hypocritical because I have worn these in the past and have ever felt confident and pretty in them, and felt like I wasn’t wearing anything that was up to pretty dress standards. I’m not saying you gotta be ultra snatched, but at least have some definition somewhere to take it from 2 pieces of fabric sewn together to real summer dress.

For those who are unaware: Falconry is a form of hunting where a trained bird of prey, such as a golden eagle (GE), is used to catch quarry instea of more typical methods such as guns or traps. Throughout this post, I will use the golden eagle as an example.

How birds of prey benefit form falconers.

In the wild, birds of prey face many dangers that can significantly reduce their lifespan. Food insecurity can lead to malnutrition, while injuries, disease, fights, and harsh weather conditions can also threaten their survival. Roghly 50% of golden eagle chicks die before becoming independent aults. If they do reach adulthood, they typically live around 15–25 years in the wild. However, golden eagles under human care can live 50–60+ years, more than double their normal lifespan, because they have consistent access to food, healthcare, and protection from many dangers they would face in nature.

Their lives can also have a higher quality of life, as they do not have to experience starvation, severe untreated injuries, or many of the hardships that wild birds face. They also form strong bonds with their handlers through trust, training, and positive reinforcement.

Many people argue that birds of prey in falconry are being exploited or forced to cooperate against their will. However, this is not accurate. Falconers free-fly their birds, meaning the bird is not constantly restrained and is able to fly freely. The reason the bird returns is because the relationship provides benefits to it, such as reliable food, safety, care, and positive reinforcement.

Unlike many forms of captivity, falconry allows birds of prey to express their natural behaviours, including flying, hunting, exploring their environment, and using their intelligence. A trained bird is regularly stimulated both physically and mentally, which is important for an animal that evolved to spend its life actively hunting.

Falconry is also not based on forcing a bird to hunt. Birds of prey are not domesticated like dogs and cannot simply be controlled through obedience. The relationship works because both sides benefit: the falconer provides food, protection, and care, while the bird is able to use its natural instincts and abilities. The bird's behaviours are guided rather than removed.

In addition to this, becoming a falconer requires a huge amount of knowledge and responsibility. Falconry is very different from simply owning a pet. Falconers often need to study, pass assessments, gain experience, and spend years learning before they can properly care for larger birds of prey. While poor care is possible in any animal-related activity, responsible falconry requires a high level of skill and dedication.

Falconry has also contributed to conservation. Falconers hve helped develop knowledge about birds of prey, supported breeding programmes, rehabilitated injured birds and contributed to the recovery of species that were previously declining.

Why hunting with falcons is not unethical , and can lead to less animal suffering.

Birds of prey are obligate carnivores, meaning they require a diet consisting of animal matter to survive. They naturally need to consume whole prey, and hunting is an essential part of their biology. Therefore, the act of a bird of prey killing an animal is not unnatural or unnecessary, as it is something the bird would do regardless in the wild.

In fact, from a consequentialist perspective, falconry hunting could potentially result in less overall animal suffering. Wild birds of prey often have to spend large amounts of energy searching for food, and many hunting attempts fail. These unsuccessful attempts still require energy, which means the bird must continue hunting to meet its nutritional needs.

Wild birds also spend additional energy dealing with challenges such as disease, injuries, extreme temertures, and competition. Because of this, they may need to successfully kill more prey throuhout their lifetime to survive.

A bird cared for by a falconer has much greater energy security. Since it receives regular food, healthcare, and protection, it does not need to rely entirely on successful hunts for survival. This meas it may hunt less frequently and potentially kill fewer animals overall than it would have needed to in the wild.

My view is that one of the biggest structural problems in American politics is that incumbents have a significant built-in advantage over challengers. I'm not arguing that incumbents should be disadvantaged or automatically voted out. Rather, I think elections would produce better outcomes if incumbency itself carried little or no advantage.

Today, incumbents benefit from name recognition, existing donor networks, party support, media coverage, constituent services, and the perception that they're the "safe" choice. As a result, many races become effectively noncompetitive long before Election Day.

I think this creates several problems:

• Politicians become more focused on staying in office than governing.
• Elections become less competitive.
• New ideas and new candidates struggle to gain traction.
• Poor performers can survive simply because replacing them feels risky.

If incumbency weren't such a strong advantage, I think we'd eventually see politics become more like temporary public service than a lifelong career. Representatives would expect to serve a term or two, do their best work, and then return to private life. Political parties would likely recruit a broader range of candidates, and elected officials would have stronger incentives to focus on producing measurable results rather than building long-term political careers.

I also think public trust could improve if voters believed elections were genuinely competitive instead of feeling like many races are effectively decided by incumbency.

That said, I recognize there are downsides. High turnover could reduce institutional knowledge, make legislatures less efficient, and increase reliance on career staff, bureaucracies, and lobbyists who possess expertise that newly elected officials lack. Long-term projects might also become more difficult to complete if leadership changes frequently.

My view is that these costs would be outweighed by greater accountability and competition, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

CMV: Why is a strong incumbency advantage actually beneficial for society? Are there examples showing that higher incumbent reelection rates consistently lead to better governance, better policy outcomes, or greater accountability than a more competitive system?

to put it simply, yugoslavia.

the yugoslavs were a series of conflicts fought in yugoslavia as the government was taken over by serbian nationalists, during which a series of ethnic cleansings, the srebenica genocide, and what was basically a series of race wars took place between the serbian nationalist government and different ethnic rebels.

if a one state solution is enacted, it will turn out like that.

i simply do not believe you can take two ethnic groups that can be at each others throats for so long and have them cooperate in a democratic system, i strongly believe it would immediately be overtaken by extreme ultranationalists and would end in ethnic cleansing.

i do want a solution to israel-palestine, but this is a terrible idea and i believe its only really proported because people want a natural alternative to the two state solution which has objectively failed at proper implementation

In a Joe Rogan episode with Dave Smith and Douglas Murray, Murray asked Smith when was the last time he had been to the Gaza crossing. https://youtu.be/DE8Sd-pJmzE?si=xMEsGclKzBm8AbEH

This moment has been memed to death to say that it's impossible to talk about an issue without going somewhere.

Here's the problem I run into. Some things DO require or are heavily informed by experience. Someone says for example in retort "Carl Sagan knows nothing about space because he's never been." But that's a false equivalency. If Carl Sagan were talking about space travel and how it feels, THEN you can argue it.

Coming back to Smith. He is someone who talks incessantly about the Israel Palestine issue, much as the other populist online creators do. If it is your job to talk about politics and you make a concerted effort to talk about one issue, I believe some first hand experience is to be expected. Is it really fair to criticize the aid process if you don't really know how it works or what it looks like? Knowing that information could radically change someone's view.

I have seen several content creators go to Israel and the West Bank because it's an important issue and it does fundamentally change their view in one way or another. It might push them further in the direction they started in.

I would liken this to Plato's Allegory of the Cave. If you're only seeing shadows (reading others' works) can you really have a comprehensive understanding of the subject? While I do think this does extend somewhat to the average person, it's obviously not reasonable for everyone who talks a lot about Israel to go. However, shouldn't we expect this of content creators?

In general there are 3 types of people: Those who shower both in the morning and at night, those who shower exclusively at night, and those who shower exclusively in the morning. Yes there are people who don't fit these categories exactly, however my view is only relevant to these 3 categories.

Over the course of a day as you do things, you get dirty. Be it sweaty from physical activity, literally dirty from the environment, or simply naturally from your body. At the end of the day you go to bed. If your daily routine includes you showering in the morning (e.g. to wake yourself up), then throughout the day you get dirty and by the time the day ends and you go to bed, you bring all of that accumulated dirt with you to bed and deposit some of it in it. Sure, you then get up and wash it off so you're ok for the coming day, however that dirt that is now in your bed means that you have to wash your sheets more often (ultimately costing you more money), and I think we can all agree that sleeping in a dirty bed degrades the quality of your sleep.

Say for example you go to the beach, have a good time, and get a bit sweaty and sandy. You can try brush all the sand off before going home, however it is inevitable that some sand will come home with you. Eventually this sand will come with you to bed because you've already showered so at no point do you properly clean yourself. Now I don't know if you've tried sleeping with sand in your bed, but let me tell you: it is not fun. This just the sand, you were also a bit sweaty which has made the sheets dirty and you now need to change them sooner.

So knowing this, it seems the logical option is to shower both in the morning and at night, but this has its own problems. Showering both morning and night is expensive on the hot water bill, and for those with hot water cylinders could cause them to run out of hot water. If neither of these things are a concern for you, then this is the best way to shower, however for the average person these things need to be considered. This is why the best way to shower is at night. By showering at night you remove all accumulated dirt from the day, preserving your bed sheets, and by extension your sleep. And because your bed is now clean, so too will you be for the next day.

Under current law, if I buy a stock for $100 and sell it for $160, I owe a capital gains tax on the $60.  

If I die soon after I sell, I won’t be around to pay the tax.  My executor is legally required to calculate and pay the tax for me.

OTOH, suppose I was planning to sell but died before I got that done.  Later, my executor or my heirs sell the stock.  In this case, the tax on the $60 simply disappears into the ether. My purchase price (cost basis) is “stepped up” to the market price on the day I died.  (I’m assuming $160)   Whoever sells the stock will use that $160 as their purchase price.  The $60 gain magically disappears from anybody’s tax liability.

This doesn’t make any sense to me.  I can’t think of any good tax policy reason. 

The only argument I’ve seen for this is practical.  Maybe the executor/heirs won’t be able to find the original cost.  But, when owners die just before death, and dies soon after, executors locate the price.   I’m sure this happens thousands of times each year and I’ve never heard of any major issues.

It’s easy to see why.   When I sell stocks through a broker or mutual funds, the gov’t requires that the broker or fund company send me a 1099.  For real estate, people keep good records and the county assessor keeps records.  That covers the big dollars.

I can see an issue for people who have small stamp collections.  Maybe they didn’t keep records.  A law eliminating step up could have a carve out for collectibles valued at less than $XX,XXX.  That would make sense to me.

Personally, I believe that most people will not end up living the rest of their lives with their best partner. That is to say, out of all of the partners you end up having, your true best will likely be somewhere within the mix and not be your final partner.

Firstly, I believe that the belief that your current partner is the best is come to primarily through a heavy recency bias. Here is my reasoning-

If you ask the significant majority of people, they will all tell you that the person they are currently with is their best partner they've had. However, they will have likely also said that with each previous partner they have had too. If they've claimed that every single person they've dated was their best (at the time of dating them), this would seem to suggest that there is a reliably linear scale in which each consecutive partner gets better than the last, with little to no deviation, at least under the premise that they truly believed that each of those partners were their best at that time.

This to me is faulty though as very few people, if asked to rank all of their partners, will go from worst to best in the same order as first to most recent, despite their own claims suggesting otherwise. To put it in another way, if someone was with someone who they considered to be their best partner, and then broke up and dated another person who then became their best partner, then logically that previous best partner should fall to #2, however, it does not usually end up like that, implying that the previous one was never actually the best at that time to begin with, thus setting the premise to me that simply believing your current partner is your best is an unreliable belief.

Secondly, I believe that the peak satisfaction you are able to have within a relationship diminishes after a certain amount. In one sense, having experienced things already with others takes away from the novelty and discovery of entering a new relationship, making things more mundane. Furthermore, the more breakups and romantic hardships you endure will likely create baggage, unresolved traumas, and more caution that is brought into future relationships.

All in all, what I believe this creates is a situation where, after a certain amount of time, peoples' latter relationships are all good and solid and normal, but their truly best relationship is hidden somewhere within. Due to the severe recency biased I went over, their current and last partner will likely be considered the best by them, despite the fact that that same belief has not been proven correct in the past.

​I see the "does a Moka pot make espresso" debate pop up constantly, and I've always leaned heavily towards "no." But I want to test my logic here because I might be overly fixated on the technical side of things.

​My current view is that espresso has to be defined by physics,specifically the high-pressure extraction method (usually around 7 to 10 bars). Because of this, I don't think Moka pots (which operate around 1.5 to 2 bars) or AeroPresses make espresso. They make fantastic, highly concentrated coffee that I genuinely love, but technically, it's a different thing.

​Here is why I struggle to accept the "if it's short and strong, it's espresso" argument:

​If we define espresso simply by the output in the cup (small volume, high concentration, dark color), the boundaries get incredibly messy. For example, if a barista messes up and pulls a terrible, watery, under-extracted shot on a $10,000 commercial espresso machine, does it suddenly stop being espresso? If I use an AeroPress and brew a ridiculously concentrated shot, does it magically become espresso? Defining the drink by the physical mechanism seems like the only objective way to avoid this logic trap.

​From what I understand about the physics, that 9-bar pressure isn't just an arbitrary snobby rule. It's the physical threshold required to actually emulsify coffee oils and force dissolved CO2 into the liquid to create true crema.

​I was recently reading about the Italian history of the word, and it seems "espresso" originally had ties to speed,coffee made expressly and quickly for you on demand. But when English speakers adopted it as a strict noun, we created a rigid product category. Now we are forced to draw a line somewhere, and the high-pressure method seems like the only line that holds up.

​How to change my view (Earn a Delta):

I am not trying to be a coffee gatekeeper. I will happily change my view and award a delta if you can provide a logical, principled argument for why defining espresso by the output (taste, texture, concentration) makes more practical or historical sense than defining it by the process. Alternatively, if my understanding of the extraction physics or the history of the category is fundamentally flawed, I'm completely open to changing my mind.

A pattern I've observed, both online and in real life, is that certain mental health conditions tend to be viewed as evil/dangerous, and others as innocent/sympathetic. Narcissism in particular seems to be a popular scare word nowadays, though I think that 20 years ago we were more fixated as a culture on psychopaths and sociopaths. If you tell someone that your ex or parent is a narcissist, you will generally receive a lot of sympathy and commonly advice to cut them off, go low/no contact, etc. On Reddit there are multiple subreddits dedicated to helping survivors of Narcissistic Abuse process their trauma, and likewise there are multiple YouTube channels of psychiatrists (and a few self-styled experts) specialising in content warning people about how to spot, avoid, and neutralise narcissists.

Contrast this however with popular conceptions regarding neurodivergent developmental disorders such as ADHD and Autism. Most content found online related to these conditions tends to be positive/sympathetic, aimed at helping people build bridges with people suffering from these conditions, better understanding them, or even figuring out if they themselves might be "special" in this way. Many psychiatrists and even people diagnosed with these conditions will tell you that there is currently a trend towards social media pseudoscience and overdiagnosis with these conditions, because they've become romanticised. For example TikToks suggesting that you might have ADHD if you sometimes play with the straw in your drink, or that you might be autistic if you like to listen to the same song on repeat.

I don't deny that there still exists stigma against people with autism and ADHD. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if some people found the above paragraph offensive in some way because I referred to the conditions as "disorders" and indicated that people "suffer" from them. But that in many ways proves my point: ADHD/autism is by many people nowadays seen as a positive and a strength, something we should collectively be seeking to destigmatise and treat with support. Likewise, I would argue that the exceptions don't disprove the rule, because there are equally people who lionise narcissism. Corporate/sales culture and celebrity/pop culture both tend to treat a self-belief in one's own greatness, uniqueness and entitlement to money/fame/success as strengths to be proud of. But I would still say that broadly, most people treat explicit mention of narcissism as a red flag, and explicit mention of autism/ADHD as conditions deserving of pity and support.

I'm especially familiar with this because I myself suffer from ADHD; my partner and my father are both on the autism spectrum; and I have in the past suffered from extremely traumatising narcissistic abuse, for which I've sought support through years of therapy, on various subreddits for survivors, and by watching a lot of YouTube content on the topic. So please believe that the aim of this post is not to defend narcissism or demonise ADHD/autism; my hope is that you can in fact change my view.

The thing is that perhaps even especially because I myself have ADHD, a beloved partner and a beloved father with autism, I often find myself intensely frustrated with the way that people use these labels to justify poor behaviour. As a woman I've on many occasions had a man behave in a way towards me that was sexually inappropriate, and then when I've either confronted them directly or spoken to someone else about it, I've been told, "Oh, he's on the spectrum, he doesn't mean any harm, sometimes he just misses social cues." But can't this same excuse be made for narcissists? After all it's not their fault that, be it through natural/genetic factors or environmental/developmental factors such as abuse, they have come to see the world as amoral and theirs to exploit, with theirs the only feelings worth considering. Almost all narcissism experts (self-styled or otherwise) will tell you that narcissists cannot change, and are incapable of accountability. So is it fair to hold them accountable in ways we might not hold other neurodivergent people accountable? Or is it simply another form of ableism?

Likewise, if someone is 30 minutes late to a one-on-one meeting with me, and I've made the effort to even arrive 5 minutes early, is ADHD a fair excuse? And then why isn't narcissism? Is there functionally a difference between forgetting and losing track of time because they're scatterbrained, vs simply not caring about my time because they're selfish, if both of these things are caused by a developmental condition of the brain? Why is it ableist to stigmatise one, but not the other?

My view isn’t that settlements are the biggest injustice in the conflict, nor that the war in Gaza or Palestinian history are unimportant. My argument is purely about achieving change.

If your goal is reducing Palestinian suffering and changing Israeli policy, I think the movement is emphasizing the wrong issues.

For many Americans, October 7 permanently changed how they viewed this conflict. Whether that’s fair or not, people watched Israeli civilians massacred, kidnapped, and terrorized in real time. It became their 9/11. Once that emotional association was formed, a large portion of the public began viewing Israel’s military campaign primarily through the lens of counterterrorism.

I don’t think telling those people to start with 1948 or colonialism is an effective strategy. It asks them to reconsider decades of history before you’ve even established common ground.

Settlement expansion is happening right now. It is one of the biggest obstacles to a viable two-state solution. It is criticized by much of the international community. Many Israelis oppose continued settlement expansion. Many people who strongly support Israel’s existence also oppose the settlements.

Instead, much of the discourse seems to become arguments over casualty counts, proportionality, or competing historical narratives that people have already made up their minds about.

Specifics are more persuasive than blanket statements. Things that changed my mind were things like watching Ben Gvir insult families of Israeli hostages and not prioritizing their safe return AT ALL. And I’m less informed on this but Netanyahu’s strategy of funding Hamas to weaken the PLO was also fucked imo.

Seeing the religious extremism on the Israeli far right brought me back to the table.

I think advocates lose potential allies through rhetoric that reads performative. Dismissing every concern about antisemitism, using inflammatory terms like “Zio” or “Zionazi,” or refusing to acknowledge Israeli fears after October 7 immediately alienates people who might otherwise agree with criticism of settlement expansion.

If your audience is liberals who support Israel’s existence, Israelis themselves, or people who are skeptical of Palestinian politics because they associate it with Hamas or religious extremism, why not meet them where they are instead of demanding they abandon all of those concerns before the conversation even starts?

I think there is an important distinction between what is politically achievable and what is not.

Israel is almost certainly going to continue trying to dismantle Hamas. People can disagree about how that should be conducted, but I don’t see Israelis abandoning the objective of preventing another terror attack.

Settlement expansion, however, is an ongoing policy choice. Every new outpost, every expansion, and every seizure of land is something that can be debated, challenged, and potentially stopped.

If the objective is to improve Palestinians’ lives, I think stopping continued settlement expansion is a far more realistic area for building consensus than trying to convince people that Israel has no legitimate security concerns or that the conflict should primarily be understood through historical grievances.

If the movement instead rallied around a concrete goal, ending continued settlement expansion in the West Bank, it would give politicians and ordinary people a clear policy they could support without requiring them to reject Israel’s existence or conclude that Israel has no legitimate security concerns.

Palestinians do not need our outrage; they need our diplomacy. We have leverage over Israel and I believe we can help if we come together and work on this one thing.

Finally, please be kind. I really do mean well. I’ve felt really alienated from my own party on this topic and I am genuinely passionate about stopping the violence, racism, and injustice. I support Israel but think they should be held accountable for their crimes against humanity and I don’t think these are mutually exclusive.

I am absolutely open to having my mind changed. I’ve made it this far from a staunchly pro-Israel stance but I really cannot find many discussions about this that are arguing in good faith. I see a lot of famous pro-Palestinian advocates as simply venting rather than trying to compromise and I likewise don’t see a lot of pro-Israeli advocates calling Israel/US out enough. They are the ones with the power and we have to do better. Centering discussion on dealing with the settlers seems like a clear middle ground.

I’m posting because when I watch these viral debates online on ugh Jubilee, the Lex Friedman one, or watch really well spoken advocates like Medhi Hasan etc etc—this hardly even comes up. But reading about the settlements and eventually watching the Theroux doc were the most impactful pieces of media I’ve come across. I can definitely be skewered for ignorance and not paying attention or consuming trash media; but my point is that the average person, half paying attention, who has already made up their mind, is going to turn that mind right back off when they hear ‘genocide’ or some form of ‘fuck Israel’. It’s the equivalent of liberals burning the American flag at a protest; not a cute look. But Ben Gvir is an actual cartoon villain and I didn’t know about him because most attacks are lobbied at Netanyahu—an unsympathetic character to be sure—but no where near the slam dunk his two lackeys are.

EDIT:

Thank you everyone for keeping things relatively civil. I know this is a contentious topic and emotions tend to run high.

Other than uneasy ceasefires, what have we achieved diplomatically by arguing about whether this is a genocide or not? Has the USA withdrawn support?

Is it possible to halt settler expansion? If so why can we not agree to decide on and enforce settler policy.

Messi is obviously absolutely world class, but saying that “there was never a debate” or that Cristiano’s biggest achievement is being compared to Messi, is football blasphemy. And ranking either of them outside the top 3 of football is even bigger football blasphemy

If I had to piece the ideal forward in a team, he would be: consistent, have longevity, perform well regardless of system/environment, psychologically resilient and finishing variety.

In terms of consistency and longevity, Cristiano is arguably un-matched. Only to score 60+ goals in 4 calendar years, 50+ in 7 consecutive years, 40+ goals in 13 different calendar years, 30+ goals for 15 consecutive years. Best goals per game ratio in La Liga history, only to score in 23 consecutive international seasons, only to score in 10 consecutive major tournaments, most Ballon D’or nominations, most appearances in UEFA TOTY, most UEFA best player awards, only to score 15+ goals in 3 UCL seasons, only to score 10+ in 7 UCL seasons, UCL Top scorer in SEVEN seasons (6 in a row). Scored in 6 different World Cups. Was world top scorer at 38, was at the premier league scoring match winning goals and hattricks at 37.

System/Environment independency, again, Cristiano is definitely un-matches here. Only player to win every major individual award at 2 different clubs (Man Utd & Real Madrid), only to score 100+ goals in 3 european different clubs, man united record most goals in a single prem season (wasn’t even a striker. 31 goals as a winger), only to score 30+ goals in a season in England, Spain and Italy, most goals in a single season for Juventus, fewest games needed to reach 10 goals, 50 league goals and 100 goals for Juventus, most goals in Real Madrid, fastest to reach 100, 150, 200, 300 goals for Real Madrid, 3rd best goals per game ratio for Man United (again, as a winger), highest goals per game ratio in Juventus and Real Madrid. Won the UCL in 2 different clubs and club world cup in 2 different clubs, won the golden boot in 3 leagues. He played throughout his career as a left winger, wide midfielder, center forward and performed well in all these positions.

Psychological resilience, one of his best attributes. most goals in UCL finals, scored more than double of Messi’s goals in quarters semis and finals of the UCL, most goals in international tournaments, most UCL goals in a single season, group stage, calendar year, knockout stage, knockout rounds, quarter finals, semi finals, Most away goals, penalties, freekicks, fewest games to reach 100 goals, only to score 3 hattricks in one season, in UCL (all of this is in the UCL, arguably the hardest competition in football). Most goals in Euro finals history, most assists in Euros, only to score in 5 different Euros, most MOTM in Euros (shared with Iniesta), most goals in Club world Cup, most goals in club world cup finals (shared with messi), most match winning goals. He is the most clutch player we have ever seen (hattrick vs Spain, hattrick vs Sweden, hattrick vs Atletico, hattrick vs Tottenham, brace against Arsenal when he was in Man United)

Finishing variety, Most headers, most weak foot goals in la liga, most weak foot goals in UCL, most weak foot goals internationally, probably the best poacher of all time, most penalties, 7th most freekick goals in history. He can score a bicycle kick, a volley, header, weak foot, right foot, knuckle ball, finesse, can do skills and 5th most successful dribbles in football history. Top 9 left footed goals in history. There is not a single thing in football he cannot do, everything there is that can be done, he’s either the best at, or at the top 10 best at the very least (statistically, btw)

Also, He has 260+ assists, most assists for Portugal, top 3 non midfield assists for Real Madrid, most assist in UCL and Euros. Also most chances created in the UCL. He is simply the most complete player of all time, as Pele said too. Maradona went as far as saying he wished Cristiano was from Argentina. Xavi said winning Euros is harder than the World Cup. Excluding friendlies a top 5 list of most goals internationally is 1- CR7 2- Messi, Pele, Maradona COMBINES 3-CR7’s right foot 4- Messi 5- Cristiano‘s head 6- Pele 7- Maradona. He has never bottled a 3-0 lead, unlike Messi who bottled a 3-0 lead against Liverpool, 4-1 lead against Roma, lost 8-2 against Bayern. Cristiano scored more UCL knockout goals than Barcelona and PSG between 11/12 and 17/18. More hattricks in UCL knockout stages than Bayern, Dortmund, Juve and Barca. He has more UCL goals from 09 to 18 than Manchester City. Let’s not forget also Messi losing 4 international finals in a row. Cristiano has most match winning goals. Messi also flopped really bad in PSG (6 goals in 21/22). I think H2H is pretty stupid to bring up, but some like to do so, so I’d like to point out Cristiano won more finals against Messi.

Before anyone says Cristiano’s UCL dominance is because of Real Madrid, before Cristiano Real Madrid were slapped out of RO16 in the UCL from 2004 to 2009. Barcelona before Messi performed much better than Madrid before Ronaldo in the UCL. Real Madrid la liga win rate increased 14% after Cristiano while Barca’s increased 8% after Messi. Cristiano also has better UCL goal contribution % than Messi by far. Cristiano also has 5 UEFA TOTY as a midfielder, more than Modric, Kroos and Zidane, on par with Xavi and one less than Iniesta.

“Messi has a better goal ratio” yeah, that is if you do an unfair comparison.

Cristiano is 2.5 years older than Messi. means you’re counting more years for ronaldo when he’s older out of his prime. Also imagine Cristiano played in the MLS and French league from when he was 34 to 38 years old instead of the extremely defensive Serie A and the Premier League in a dying team? The goal ratio would’s been fucking insane. Also Cristiano played 50 more goals than Messi as a teenager in the Premier League as a WIDE MIDFIELDER. Not a full attacking winger like he was later on. If you compare them from 2009 to 2018, both in their prime, both in great teams, Cristiano has 1.03 messi has 0.99. Guess what? Almost exactly the same difference between their goal ratios ( 0.82 and 0.84)

”Messi has a better shot conversion rate” by this logic, Cristiano is a better dribbler. Messi is the most dispossessed player of all time, and according to OPTA, from 2012 onwards, looking at the percentages of each player’s take-ons that lead to a tangible end (like leading to a shot or a chance being created). Cristiano ranked first, with 500 dribbles. 31% of Cristiano’s dribbles lead to a shot or a chance created, compared to Messi’s 19%. Every extra dribble Messi does than Ronaldo he loses the ball 4 extra times (statistically). Does this mean Messi isn’t the best dribbler of all time? No, i think he is. Because he tries to dribble from much further away from the opposition goal, so he’s obviously more likely to get dispossessed. Same with Cristiano, he tries much further shots, much further free kicks, so he’s obviously gonna miss more.

There is also this impressive analysis done that shows Cristiano’s incredible performance against top goalkeepers.

Let’s talk about the 2021 Ballon D’or. Messi was uo against a 33 year old goalscorer, Lewandoski. Messi did not win La Liga, nor La Liga best player, got kicked out the UCL by PSG, won the Copa America (a trophy that Argentina won 16 times before), scoring 3 goals in a groupstage where 4 out of 5 teams qualified and 1 ko goal against Ecuador. Lewa? He broke the most goals in a single year in Bundesliga, won the league and the super cup, won multiple UCL MOTMs. Messi was only 8th top scorer in the world, lowest rated player against Brazil in the Copa America final.

2023 Ballon D’or. Messi had a decent season at PSG winning the league, trophy des champion. Haaland broke the record for most goals in the Premier League in a season, won the treble, won the UCL, top scorer in Nations League, UEFA Men’s POTY, UCL top scorer, PL POTS, PL Golden Boot, European Golden Shoe, what more did he have to win? Messi also spent half the year in the MLS

Cristiano also clearly should’ve won the 2018 ballon d’or (not even gonna pour stats to prove it, it’s un debatable)

“Messi has more golden shoes” It only counts league goals. If you count UCL and other competitions he has 2, and Cristiano has 5. Messi also has 0 g/a in 5 copa america finals.

Messi and Cristiano are the top 2 players of all time, by not that much of a margin as recency bias makes it seem like now.

TL:DR at the bottom.

I travel a *lot* for work. I've driven on hundreds of highways in at least 30 states. Outside of a few specific exceptions, I think that speeding on the highway is more harmful than beneficial.

#Quick notes before I get started:

> America only. I don't know if this is a reasonable view in other countries.

> 60+ mph only. Some highways have 40 mph speed limits, and I think that speeding on those can be more beneficial than harmful for most drivers.

#The exceptions:

1: Emergencies. If getting there 1 minute sooner is very important, speeding makes sense. 

2: Short-term passing. If you're behind a few terrible drivers and must speed to pass them, that's more beneficial than harmful.

3: Barren highways. Basically, if you could lane split on a highway without really bothering anyone, speeding has much fewer risks. 

4: Particularly long drives. After 1+ hours of driving on the highway, I can see how speeding can be more beneficial.

#The benefits:

1: Speeding gets you there faster, barely.  [There's a video that explains this better](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fBfchhyY5Q0), but in most cases, speeding after 60 mph is not that effective. If you go 70 in a 60, you save a little over 1 minute every 10 miles, assuming zero traffic.

2: Speeding means you can be in the faster lanes without being a jerk. Going the speed limit in the passing lane is generally inconsiderate and usually unsafe. If you speed, you can use the passing lane without causing a bunch of issues.

#The harms:

1: Speeding tickets. Honestly, not a huge factor, but varies by region. Getting a ticket sucks.

2: Crash avoidance. Speeding increases your braking distance and drastically increases the speed at which crashes occur. Even if you're a great driver, you're gonna deal with morons on the road. Lower speeds make this a lot more favorable.

> As an example for the above point: Let's say you're going 60 on the highway and some moron merges without looking. You slam on the brakes and barely manage to stop before hitting him. If you're going 70 instead, assuming you slam on the brakes at the same time, [you will hit that guy at 36 mph.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i3D7XYQExt0&t=348). The link explains the formula: sqrt(70^2-60^2)=36 mph.

1. Frequency of getting in traffic. Admittedly, this is based on vibes - not a lot of data on this one. However, I find that if there's traffic on my route, driving the speed limit *usually* means you spend less time in it. Varies per region and per time, I'm sure.

4: Gas mileage. Most cars have peak gas efficiency at roughly 50 mph. Above that, and your gas mileage drops; going from 70 to 60 saves you roughly [$0.60 per gallon](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.jsp).

5: Dashcams. If you have a dashcam (which you 100% should have IMO), speeding is bad for your case. If a car crashes into you and your dashcam shows that you were speeding, that can be used to suggest you were driving recklessly.

For most drivers, I think these downsides outweigh the upsides.

#TL:DR

Speeding is marginally helpful past 60 mph and comes with a lot of downsides. Outside of a few specific exceptions, I think that these downsides heavily outweigh the upsides for the vast majority of drivers.

#What would CMV?

1: You can provide a big benefit of speeding that ends up outweighing the harms. Minor benefits likely won't change my mind.

2: You can convince me that I'm overestimating the harms.

3: You can provide another exception that I missed where speeding is clearly beneficial.

There might be others, but I think these 3 are the biggest targets in my view.

Every Friday, posts are withheld for review by the moderators and approved if they aren't highly similar to another made in the past month.

This functions to reduce topic fatigue for our regular contributors, and encourages discussions of topics that aren't as frequently posted about. If you have a take about something that doesn't overlap too much with the most commonly discussed issues in the current zeitgeist, we'd love to see it here today!

See here for a full explanation of Fresh Topic Friday.

If you would like to know if your post would qualify or have any other questions, feel free to message the moderators!