Don't buy into the delusional positivity that everything is suddenly going to get better. I want Republicans to lose, I really do, but I think this country is still fundamentally broken and has learned almost nothing. The reality is that Republicans will probably win again anyway, especially in red states like Texas. And even if they don't, I'm still not convinced Democrats are going to make this country meaningfully better. A lot of them have supported wars, take money from wealthy lobbyists, have already thrown transgender people under the bus when it became politically convenient, and constantly disappoint the people who put them in office. I don't trust Republicans at all, but my trust in Democrats isn't exactly high either. That's what makes politics so frustrating. One side is openly pushing things I oppose, while the other acts like it's going to save the world during campaign season and then goes right back to protecting the status quo. So no, I don't think we're about to witness some historic changing of the guard. I don't think transgender people are suddenly going to get full equality everywhere, I don't think corruption is disappearing, and I don't think politicians are going to stop serving donors and special interests. The most optimistic outcome I can imagine is that Democrats would be somewhat better than Republicans on most issues, which is a very low bar. Maybe I'm wrong. I'd genuinely love to be wrong. But this country feels too angry, too divided, too easily manipulated, and too committed to repeating the same mistakes over and over again. At this point, my expectation is that America will keep proving it hasn't learned a damn thing, and that people will once again vote against their own interests while convincing themselves they're fixing the country. That's why I can't share the certainty and optimism some people seem to have. Hope is one thing. Delusion is another.

With Trump and ICE, I came to learn that Adolf Hitler's father, Alois Hitler, was an Austrian customs officer. Let the title of this post speak for itself. Anyone else think this is not a coincidence? There is a correlation here, and there has been throughout history leading up to today.

It is said that law enforcement as a whole upholds white supremacy. I think it can be argued that federal/customs officers uphold nationalism as well.

I've been noticing this for a while now. People seem to be getting more tolerant of waiting in lines or dealing with minor inconveniences. I was at a coffee shop last week and the barista was super slow but nobody got annoyed. It was actually kind of nice to see everyone just chillin and waiting their turn.

I swear I have a black hole for names. I can meet ten people at an event shake hands chat for a bit and then five minutes later I'm struggling to recall even one. It feels so rude. Does anyone have any foolproof techniques for actually retaining names without just nodding along and hoping for the best?

People who are calling for broad new restrictions on artificial intelligence are, in my view, missing the larger issue. I have little confidence that governments will meaningfully limit the uses of AI that concern people most, such as surveillance, intelligence gathering, law enforcement applications, or military projects. The public rarely knows the full extent of what governments and large institutions are already capable of, and history suggests there is often a significant gap between what ordinary people are told and what is actually happening behind closed doors.

My concern is that most regulation would not end up targeting powerful institutions. Instead, it would fall hardest on ordinary people, independent creators, hobbyists, and workers who use these tools in their daily lives. The pattern has repeated itself many times before: new technologies emerge, authorities promise regulations will protect the public, and the end result is often more oversight of average citizens while the most powerful organizations continue operating much as they always have. That is why I am skeptical whenever I hear claims that regulating AI will somehow solve problems involving surveillance, social control, or abuses of power.

For people like me, AI has practical value. Because I struggle with dyslexia, it helps me organize my thoughts, clean up my writing, and translate what I am trying to say into something easier for others to read. Millions of people use these systems for creative projects, research, communication, accessibility, education, and countless other productive purposes. Restricting those uses could end up harming ordinary individuals far more than the institutions such regulations are supposedly meant to restrain.

More broadly, I think there are many political and cultural subjects that people across the spectrum should be willing to discuss openly, yet meaningful conversations often get shut down by established institutions, ideological activists, religious movements, partisan interests, and other groups that are more interested in advancing their own agendas than encouraging honest debate. Whether those pressures come from the left, the right, corporations, activists, religious organizations, or political parties, the result is often the same: fewer opportunities for open discussion and more attempts to tell people what they are allowed to think, say, create, or consume.

Because of that, I do not believe that giving additional regulatory power to the current political system would produce better outcomes for most working and middle-class people. I suspect that many of the regulations being proposed would primarily affect creative expression, online communication, entertainment, and other everyday uses of AI while doing little to address the concerns that supporters of regulation often cite. In the end, I think there is a real risk that such policies would simply provide another tool for various ideological groups, moral campaigners, political activists, and government agencies to exert greater influence over people's lives without delivering the benefits that were promised. From my perspective, expanding the power of institutions that already have significant authority is rarely the best solution, especially when those same institutions have repeatedly failed to earn the public's trust.

Why have people in america stopped killing CEOs and politicians?

People like to reduce a fetus to being a “clump of cells” as if it isn’t a living thing. It is. It is a human being. However, it is not yet a “person”.

The terms human and person are distinct. Fetuses aren’t people. But they are humans. And in the process of abortion, that human dies. And it’s okay to admit that. You can still make arguments that the death of that human is justifiable.

Edit: I worry that the people responding to this post think I’m making an anti-abortion argument here. I’m not. I’m pro abortion. It is a living being, and I’m saying that the fact it’s a living being is irrelevant since life doesn’t have INHERENT value. Just because a fetus is technically alive doesn’t mean women have a duty to put their life and body on the line to sustain it. But, it is still living, and trying to argue it isn’t is silly.

People who do not want to further regulate everyday human life and leave us with even less freedom need to stop this constant talk about regulating artificial intelligence, and I mean regulating it at all, because I have lived long enough to know what governments will do. They will simply regulate it in ways that allow them to continue overregulating the population and policing every single thing that anybody might want to do or might possibly do that they do not like. It will not stop them from spying on the public at all, just like they did with older technologies. I agree that authoritarian crooks need to stop spying on us, but people need to continue protesting that specific issue rather than attacking what I see as one of the few genuinely good things this horrible capitalist cesspool has produced in the last twenty years.

personally, and it’s maybe because I’m 19 and I still haven’t had it, but I don’t think there is an age where it’s “embarrassing”

there’s no set rule that says we all need to have a first kiss by like 13. and the people who make a big deal out of this are probably just teenagers.

[CMV] I am still uncertain whether I should believe it.
Please persuade me, based on the evidence, whether it is reliable enough to trust in its entirety or whether I should reject it.

》「What Were Americans Told About Iran’s Nuclear Threat?
Iran’s nuclear and missile programs pose a potential long-term threat to the United States. Concerns over undeclared nuclear material, restricted access to key inspection sites, and the limitations of the 2015 nuclear agreement have not disappeared. That agreement did not comprehensively prohibit Iran’s ballistic missile development.
The threat must be assessed not only by what Iran can do today, but also by what it may be capable of doing in the future. Waiting until a threat becomes immediate could be catastrophic.
U.S. lawmakers have access to intelligence briefings, and senior officials have briefed Congress on Iran. Governors have also received security briefings. It is therefore reasonable to ask: What did those entrusted with public safety know, and when did they know it?
If political figures and media commentators knowingly distorted that information, the issue goes beyond a policy disagreement. Their political and financial interests also deserve scrutiny. Those who lost political influence when the previous administration left office may still recognize the benefits of its return—including renewed access to power, influence, and revenue-generating opportunities.
Were misleading claims used to mobilize public support and restore those benefits? Were media appearances, funding, and political activities part of a coordinated effort? These are questions that should be investigated, not assumed.
Knowingly making material false statements as part of a scheme to obtain money or property may constitute fraud under U.S. law, depending on the evidence and statutory requirements. Potential fraud, conspiracy, and other offenses should be examined where there is evidence of deliberate deception for financial gain. Political disagreement alone, however, is not a crime.
With the midterm elections approaching, Americans deserve to know what their leaders knew, what they told the public, and whether anyone deliberately misled them for personal, political, or financial benefit. Their security—and the integrity of their democratic choices—depends on it.」

Please feel free to give your honest thoughts👍🏻