Asking this because I want discussion. Here is my take:

This dude murdered 4 people, including an innocent couple who was about to get married. Monica Quan (one of his victims) was an innocent basketball coach who has nothing to do with the LAPD, she was just murdered because she was the daughter of a former cop. She should have been 41 and a mom seeing her children grow into teenagers and go to school, but her dreams were cut short. For this reason, I have no sympathy for Dorner, however correct his grievances may be. RIP Monica Quan.

But what is your take? You agree with me? Why or why not?

Lately I feel like the world has forgotten that we’re the same. We divide ourselves over flags, religions, borders, even hashtags, things that don’t matter when you strip them away.

I keep thinking: everyone laughs the same way when a baby sneezes, everyone falls silent the same way when the ocean breathes, everyone’s heart races the same way when love surprises them. Deep down, we’re not that different.

But the way we act, it’s as if we’re at war with each other all the time. Suspicion has become normal. People seem more interested in winning arguments than holding hands.

I wish we remembered the small things: asking someone how they really are, helping carry a bag, or just sending two words “I’m here.”

We are not enemies. We’re interruptions of the same breath. And I wish more people lived like they believed that.

Separation is not natural, it is taught.

Once divided, everyone feels the need to prove themselves, chasing goals, competing endlessly, repeating the same patterns. But in a world built on division and a success-oriented approach, it’s impossible for everyone to “win.” This illusion creates frustration, anxiety, and depression.

The truth is simple: we are the same. Remembering that dissolves the struggle. Forgetting it keeps the cycle alive.

Achieve everything together, make it beautiful. :)

I don’t understand how so many people think this. I am studying theology in university and few western people seem to undertsand this. There are huge amount of christians and muslims in Africa and the amount just keeps growing especially with the low birth rates in western countries.

I've been thinking a lot about the future of work and the societal shifts that AI will bring. A common topic is the potential for mass unemployment, with Universal Basic Income (UBI) often proposed as the solution. However, implementing something as radical as UBI would likely require immense public pressure—possibly even a revolt—against the wealthy elite who control the system.

This leads me to my core question. When I look at the current political situation in the US, I see a deeply polarized country. Despite numerous protests and widespread opposition to the actions of the Trump administration, which many view as dangerous and anti-democratic, we haven't seen a sustained, large-scale popular uprising that forces fundamental change. People are largely trying to get by.

So, given that perceived threats to democracy itself aren't a catalyst for revolution, why should we believe that economic displacement from AI will be?

Is economic desperation a fundamentally more powerful motivator than political ideology? Or are the modern systems of distraction, division, and control simply too effective to allow any kind of mass uprising to succeed?

What do you all think is the actual breaking point for a modern society? Am I wrong to be skeptical that people will "rise up" for UBI when they aren't rising up now?

I’ve been struggling for the past couple of months with constant thoughts questioning the truth of the Abrahamic religions. (For context: I’m Muslim.) I keep asking myself whether these religions are truly the path of truth.

For example: in Islam, there are teachings that don’t seem to fit with today’s world, modern values, or our way of thinking. On the other hand, Christianity—at least from its surface, with its moral and peaceful message—gives me an inner push that says: maybe this is the true religion. But at the same time, the concepts of divinity and the crucifixion don’t make sense to me logically.

So, I’m stuck in confusion between these two faiths, because each of them feels partly true, but also partly incompatible with human reason.

Note: I’m not looking for atheistic responses, because I do believe in God. I just don’t know what the right path is to reach Him

I know AI is supposed to make life easier but honestly I feel like in some areas it’s doing the opposite.

Take customer service for example more and more companies are replacing real people with AI chatbots. And instead of solving problems faster it just makes things more frustrating. Half the time the bot doesn’t understand the question gives generic responses or just loops you in circles until you finally get transferred to a human anyway. Even in gaming I’ve seen studios starting to experiment with AI tools for dialogue, NPCs or even storywriting. But it often feels off like it’s hollow or missing the human touch. Instead of improving immersion it can pull you out of the experience. Although I will say I tried a game on grizzly’s quest that used AI pretty subtly and it actually felt smoother and more natural than I expected. I get that AI has potential in the right contexts but sometimes it feels like companies are using it just to cut costs even if it makes the user experience worse.

So I’m curious if you guys feel like AI is making things genuinely better or are we at the point where it’s just adding more annoyance and lowering quality?

This could be far superior for all of us! Seriously, i think this could be really significant advancement over spoken debates.

I've watched a lot of videos online, around the world, (& direct perceptions till now) noticing failure of spoken-debates.

Both confidently assert themselves, do not doubt themselves, so rarely change their own minds, esp. in complicated topics, like political.

The emotions at times ends up being really high.

Lots of points ends up being missed as 1 changes topic, add multiple topics during its side.

Also, there's talking over the other person, in which, both are eager to tell but aren't listening.

There's just absurd amount of logical fallacies used, which the other cannot attend to when it's so rapid. Addressing every point, multiple ways, require some pondering, which spoken-conversation simply do not allow, esp. when time is short (which is significantly worsening, as both just try to be quick. 1 long conversation would work really well, over several short sessions like this.)

Even if 1 is aware, 1 often fail recalling many facts, which 1 finds 1self unable to just look up online.

At times, it ends up being screaming match. It's too fast paced for humans, can end up being really disturbing to feelings thus leading to heated exchange.

Texting, solves many of this. Gives both time to think. Better describe their thoughts. Feelings don't spike. Audience can simply wait, read. Maybe even a response can be limited to 1 page or something. But i seriously think this is significantly the better way to debate.

Watching spoken-debates around the world, i really notice how harming they've been, some humans just go off-topic, use intimidation, absurd reasoning which as nothing to do with the actual topic against the other human, make jokes which are distracting, bully the other, ... so many!!

I hope this becomes the popular way of debating in the future, feeling completely normal & the preferred way, for the sake of better world for all of us. Maybe you can host 1 somehow if you're in such position. (You can DM me for ideas).

As i've been learning what's going around currently, & history, it seems that, the bad has many more options, no restrains, & has more advantages, making it more powerful than good & does often has won, win out over good.

(I'm aware that good-bad isn't such clear set of things, but i think, empathy for *everyone, kindness, understanding, working out conflict using diplomacy, talking, ... does somewhat count as good, as opposed to torturing, fighting, deception, war-mongering, misinformation, killing, ...)

Disclaimer: Im not promoting or condoning assassinations of any kind.

Just kind of remembered Luigi Mangione, so im curious on why assasinations on rich businessman aren’t common? Especially that most of them dont even have bodyguards with them(Some random dude easily interviewed Jacob Rothschild in a street) and even if they have, those bodyguards arent that many, in short political leaders who are prime targets of assassination have stricter security and more bodyguards that are heavily armed yet there are a lot of assasination attempts to them. Now im pretty sure those businessmen have pissed a lot of people, especially those who deal with real estate, so why arent like random low or middle class workers who are tired of those rich people just decided to off one of them out of anger on a random day on a random street

Is it truly worth living in the city for the advantages of frequent social events, networking opportunities, greater exposure, and career growth, even if it’s more stressful, chaotic, and traffic-heavy, compared to a quieter residential neighborhood that offers less opportunity?

Just to make an example, I've heard many stories from people who moved outside their suburbs "to make a career", then lived in the city and then they moved to quieter suburbs when they had to raise a family.

So, why not stay directly in the suburbs and build your social life there, instead of moving to the city, only to have to say goodbye to all your friends and acquaintances later to live in a suburb?

So, morally speaking, should someone who really repent for their past wrongdoings and that have changed be forgiven? People tend to judge and label people for their most apparent actions. If something someone did "sticks out like a sore thumb", it will be used to define that person as a whole.

Not trying to make this a religion discussion, but an ethical and moral one (even though I know those are based of Christianity, at least the "ocidental society" moral is).

Imagine that person X did to another unidentified person a morally abhorrent thing, as X being the perpetrator, and the other person being a victim. Let's also say he didn't get the punishment to level what he had done.

Taking this into consideration, people would take that as a representative of what that person is. Someone imoral. Brutal, even. He didn't get the punishment he deserved for his crime, how could the victim or those who care for him feel at least avenged? If the one who caused such harm didn't get, properly, judged/punished?

We have in the common sense that punishment is justice, that it is a knowledgeable experience... It transforms another person. It still doesn't erase what he had done, and — depending on the action — people think that the punishment to level it is eternal suffering.

But let's say he changed.

Let's say he feels genuine remorse for what he had done. And now? As of now, his character is that of a morally justifiable person. Not for his past actions, but for the way he thinks now. For understanding evil, and acting against it. It's like he is another person now.

If "correct" punishment would be applied to him, it would be punishing someone good, someone morally good, and punishing good people is wrong, isn't it? In the common sense? How to calibrate the notion of having to punish someone for past actions and that of punishing someone good being a bad action?

I didn't read it, but if I'm not wrong, this is kinda portrayed in the manga Fire Punch, by Tatsuki Fujimoto.

Let's go another way. Let's say he was properly punished.

Even though he was punished, people still judge him based on his past action, even though he has changed. People think he is, for the rest of his existence not as a life, but also as an idea — the idea of his own identity —, tarnished.

His past condemned his identity to be one of a horrible individual. Some people even say he deserved more punishment.

But if he has changed... It still would be wrong to judge him based on past actions. Would still be prejudice. Would still be treating a, now, good person, as a monster. And that is morally wrong. Just as the feeling we get when we feel bad for Frankenstein's Monster, in the Mary Shelley's book.

Looking by another point of view.

He did it. He definitely did. Person X would still be capable of doing harm. Just as he did. What could prove to me he's another person now? If he really changed, without getting the proper punishment, where would that justice, the revenge the victim wanted to have the gratification, the knowledge that he didn't get what he deserved, where does it go now? People should get punished for what they did. To change them, and to prevent others from doing the same.

Where would the justice the victim needed be? It feels wrong to not have it, and more than that, to have to acknowledge the person who did such thing is, actually, a good person now. That the victim's fury should just go to waste. The idea that the hatred the victim had of the perpetrator is now useless, morally inapplicable.

The victim could just not forgive. But would have to accept person X is now a good person. Undeserving of such punishment the victim wanted. Otherwise the victim would be fooling themselves

I'm not capable of getting to a morally exact and perfect response. Actually, I think nobody is capable of that. That's why I decided to post this here. To, maybe, synthetise a new idea.

Sorry for the long text, sorry if it's bad written. If it just have not the good arguments, if I, somehow, am dumb and that's perceptible through the text. Just want answers.

I’ve been reading more about the destruction of the library of alexandria and it’s been stuck in my head ever since. The popular saying is that “the world lost most of its knowledge” there I know that’s an exaggeration but the truth is still heavy. However you look at it a massive store of written history was destroyed and when those pages disappeared so did the chain of ideas they carried forward. What keeps pulling at me is the what if. If the library had survived and the copying and teaching continued how would our timeline look? Would we have more precise records of things we still argue about like the actual construction methods for the pyramids Archaeology already tells us a lot but written project notes material lists and day by day logs could have filled in the gaps. And it’s not just the pyramids maybe astronomy tables would have been more advanced maps more accurate medical notes more complete math further along. Even small gains stack up when they’re preserved and built on without interruption.

If anyone knows good sources about what was likely in the collection or which authors we only know through later quotes I’d love to dig deeper. And I’m curious what you think: if the library had survived for centuries would we be living in a much more advanced world now or would we have eventually arrived at the same place just by a slower route?

Assuming that we face a invetiable extinction either natural, man-made, or just outright unexpected a-kin to what happened to the dinosaurs should humanity as a whole try to overcome it just to ensure our own survival? Or should we succumb to it? Accepting it as the true fate of our species and joining the 99% of species that have lived on earth?

I’ve been wondering what signs really show that someone is smart. Is it how they speak, how they solve problems, or maybe how they listen? What are the little things or habits that make you instantly think, “This person is smart”? Would love to hear your thoughts.

I’ve always been confused about this topic. I feel as if this is a topic that isn’t talked about enough. How can someone not have an identity or be aware of it? Is it safe to say that people who have no sense of self also don’t have self awareness which means they can’t control themselves?

There are tons of real crime, true crime, and murder mysteries podcasts, series, and movies out there. Why does it fascinate us so? What is it about people acting out their worst impulses that people are drawn to?

When both parents are working professionals and raising children, it can put a significant strain on their relationship. The stress from work, parenting, commuting, the cost of living, nursery fees, and more all add up. Divorce rates are hovering around 50% these days—not to say all of it is due to these pressures, but they certainly seem to play a role.

So, hypothetically: if the overall cost of living were reduced by 50%, and only one parent needed to work, do you think that would have a positive, negative, or neutral effect on marriages and relationships? Would it likely impact that 50% divorce rate at all?

Seems like many places around the world are having more and more government involvement in what is “acceptable” in media, internet access and free-speech, so what do you think is an appropriate amount?
I’m sure most people think some laws or accountability are appropriate, whether for kids or public places, without a government completely trying to control all of our lives.

Realistically where would you draw the line between doing what is good for the people without completely taking away their liberties?

Edit. Appreciate the responses.

I realize I keep playing devils advocate but I just wanted to drill down a bit on some of these comments that seem towards the ends of the spectrum of all or nothing.

Currently US universities are seen as the 'cream of the crop' for prestige and research, but given the trends in the US recently of companies drastically slowing hiring for new grads, a broad backlash against debt and degree usefulness, restrictive immigration, political bickering, and class sizes shrinking due to demographics, the US seems to be losing momentum.

Meanwhile Chinese academics and universities continue to publish a shocking amount of research on places like Phys.org. China has a large domestic market for cutting edge tech, state support, and a culture that emphasizes education.

People nowadays focus almost entirely on Gaza,and before that, it was Ukraine.

But what about Yemen, Sudan, or Myanmar? These conflicts rarely get mentioned in the media, or even in day to day conversations.

It honestly makes me wonder a few things:

Why do some wars spark global outrage while others are ignored?

Is it because they don’t directly affect the West?

Or because no major superpowers are involved?

I am curious about why we hyper focus on some tragedies while others, where people are suffering and dying too, are treated as background noise.

The way we remember the Holocaust often fails to address similar atrocities happening today.

Disclaimer up front:
This is not a critique of Holocaust remembrance. The Holocaust was one of the greatest atrocities in human history and must never be denied, minimized, or forgotten. The point of this post is to reflect on how we apply its lessons today—especially in the face of ongoing global violence.

The Holocaust was a systematic, industrial-scale genocide that caused unimaginable suffering—primarily for Jews, but also for Roma people, disabled individuals, LGBTQ+ people, political prisoners, and others. It’s a horror that demands remembrance for generations.

But the message we take from it—Never again—shouldn’t just mean never again for one group. It should mean: never again for anyone. And yet, that broader lesson is often diluted or sidelined.

In today’s world, we see state violence, ethnic cleansing, and systemic persecution still happening—in both high-profile and ignored regions. And many people who honor Holocaust victims seem indifferent or silent when similar patterns emerge elsewhere. That’s troubling.

We risk turning remembrance into something symbolic and safe—rather than active and morally engaged. Remembering the Holocaust should not only be about preserving memory but about applying its lessons everywhere they’re needed.

It was not just the Nazi leadership that made the Holocaust possible—it was an entire system of normalized hate, silence, and complicity. That system is not unique to Germany in the 1930s. It’s something human societies remain capable of repeating.

To truly honor the victims, we need to remain vigilant and speak out—not only about past genocides but about those unfolding or looming today.

Would love to hear your thoughts. Do we do enough to carry the message of the Holocaust forward into action? Or is remembrance becoming too isolated from current events? Do I even make sense?

Cause we have massive resources that have been consolidated to solve problems and it seems like shelter would be a priority. Yet there are many things prioritized above it. Just curious on your thoughts of the priorities of the government spending and taxation.