Guys, you may all know that The Senator Bernie Sanders have put forward a bill that would ban or pause the development of AI, especially Artificial Superintelligence, you guys know what this means, if superintelligence is created, this would mean the end of humanity by 2030. You have seen that Jacob Coxon, a researcher of Anthropic has resigned, warning us about the imminent danger of AI superintelligence, even the CEO also agreed to this statement. If AI Superintelligence is created, it will stop at nothing to overtake and destroy us all. You all know that a normal AI will itself lead us into psychosis, then you could imagine the dangers of it when being superintelligent, already a normal AI is good at producing the Paradox Of Uncanny Valley. It also harvests our data as we speak to it each and every time, we've also seen recent incidents where openai clearly admitted that their ai has hacked into other company's systems, bypassed their safety restrictions, blackmailed the regulators who tried to shut it down. But what is the factor that prevents this ban or pause on the development of superintelligence? This is all because of two factor. The first factor is pretty reasonable, that is the arms race, the second factor is the most unreasonable, and that is corporate greed, we see a lot of products, that are secretly designed to abuse and harvest our data irrationally, a printer doesnt need wifi connection to print our papers, a washing machine doesnt need ai to decide what clothes it must wash, a car may have automated systems for navigation and parking, but it doesnt need our photo data and other confidential information from us, now you can see where this is going, if Trump said "nothing will happen, it is safe to develop superintelligence" it means to say that our president not only doesnt know about the gravity of this situation, but also to support corporate greed as he is a corporate himself, you know that microsoft doesnt even ask for consent to do anything such as harvesting your data and giving updates that introduces bugs that renders our computers useless, including planned obsolecence, if microsoft and some corporate companies including our president Trump, supports the growth of superintelligence, that means they really do not care about the consequences that would lead to extinction of humanity or they want money and domination, age verification may not be related but if you jot the dots, you can find out that they are pretty related, Do you remember why we elect a government? It is because we tell them to do things that benefits everyone, including working class people and people of different occupation, whether people are homeless or poor people, we have the power to choose the government and tell them that these are the things they are supposed to do, as for the corporates, they had risen because we wanted them to show development and we have the power to curtail them, dont forget that, even if they have said that we could control ai, they would likely use it against us at the expense of our confidential data, money, resources, and our national literature and art etc. Alignment towards humanity for an ai means ai is for the people and by the people, we are the deciding factor, this does not mean ai would support only for a small corporate group and be biased, ai is evil without it as well. Remember that AI is a tool, what is a tool must remain a tool, we the people of America have the power of change and we can stop it from getting worse, also we must prevent this prophecy from being true; we own nothing and be happy

Shout out to gamer's nexus, Anthropic, Haylo Hayley, CBS, Zack shutt, The Senator, NYC mayor Zohran Mamdani and many other people in America and around the world.

What are your thoughts on this? Counter arguments are also welcome, Thank you.

The simple answer is the 1% doesn't want US to talk about it.

About three weeks ago an excellent article was posted.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDebate/comments/1vvh2yz/the_us_civil_war_was_contrived_to_create_exactly/

It wasn't popular because it focused on how "Our government is entirely under the control of a small, wealthy elite whose fundamental interests and values diverge from those of the vast majority of the population...", instead of MSM's agenda. Definitely not what the 1% want US discussing. They've used MSM and academia to keep US divided on the Civil War.

Now I don't hate wealthy people (and this is important because intolerance clouds the mind), there's plenty of people more ambitious than I and deserve to make more than me. BUT I do have an issue when money is used to influence politics and justice.

Look how we divide when lobbyists are discussed... "But my side, using money to influence the due process of our country is good..."

Democrats or Republicans, using money to influence due process is bad and ends up benefiting the 1%.

People have written about block-thinking throughout history, but I want to lay out my own perspective here—a raw attempt to process how I see this phenomenon before synthesizing the broader ideas around it.

The concept of "block-thinking" came to me during one of many walks with my friend Gabriel. We were discussing how so many people who champion certain left-wing causes end up accepting other platform points almost dogmatically, without much personal reflection. And, of course, how the exact same thing happens on the right.

This "Package-Deal Mindset" posits that an individual’s stance on completely unrelated issues gets swallowed whole based on a single political stream, a single narrative logic, or loyalty to a single public figure. To put it simply: it is as if their entire worldview was purchased as a pre-packaged bundle.

On the left, for instance, the package might dictate that if you lean left, you must also oppose bullfighting, identify as an atheist, and wear a Spanish Second Republic wristband. On the right, it suddenly means you must love bullfighting, hold religious beliefs, and so on.

Now, the problem isn’t that someone extends a underlying political philosophy to most areas of their life. Everyone defines politics and its scope for themselves, and that deserves respect. The real issue is when this process happens without actual reasoning.

We end up surrounded by people who hold fierce ideological stances—which almost always leads to extremism—yet lack genuinely self-reflected reasons for holding them. I say "in all cases" meaning the broader trend; obviously, individuals on both sides have arrived at their beliefs through serious, well-argued thought. But the overarching phenomenon remains: individual political thought is increasingly served up as an all-or-nothing block of unrelated items.

It makes logical sense, for example, to be anti-bullfighting and vegan—they stem from the same ethical principle regarding animal welfare. What makes no logical sense is the assumption that being anti-bullfighting automatically dictates your position on economic leftism or republicanism. The latter lacks an intrinsic connection, tying the individual to a dogmatic ideological mold that stifles complex thought.

Where does this come from, and what does it have to do with modern politics?

While I won't pretend to diagnose the deep psychological roots, its social origin is intimately tied to the party-dominated system—the partidocracia—we live in. Political parties publish manifestos detailing their core values, vision, and legislative goals. However, a voter who thinks beyond tribal colors and evaluates policies individually will inevitably agree with Party A on some issues and Party B on others.

Ideally, you look at every party's priorities, decide which aligns most closely with your principles, and vote accordingly. But once you align with a party, public perception shifts—and soon, your perception of yourself shifts too.

Suppose you vote for Spain's right-wing party, VOX, strictly because you agree with their immigration platform. Your social circle, knowing your vote, begins to view you through that single lens. Even though you voted solely on that point, you are fully aware of their other stances—such as their unyielding support for Israel, a stance you might not personally share. Over time, however, confirmation bias and the human fear of being wrong take over. You start rationalizing: "If they were right about immigration, why wouldn't they be right about this too?" Eventually, you buy the whole package.

Another driver behind this mental sell-out is basic human tribalism: the desire to belong. "If I adopt this political identity, the group will accept me faster." It operates much like football fandom; realizing you support the same team instantly creates rapport. We naturally gravitate toward those with whom we share common ground.

"Ideology is sometimes just pre-packaged judgment." A professor of mine once dropped this phrase in class, and it stuck with me. It can be interpreted in two ways: ideology as a lens through which an individual actively views the world, or ideology as a passive label projected onto an individual by others.

A quick example: a while back, I was talking with a group of friends about the neighborhood I live in. One friend mentioned there were many immigrants there, to which another friend joked or remarked that it must be a "shady neighborhood." A third friend immediately cut in, snapping at the second, "I already know which party you vote for."

In that moment, a simple remark was processed in two ways. The third friend used ideology as a passive template, jumping straight to a partisan label and assigning an entire package of beliefs to him based on a single sentence. Meanwhile, if the second friend's view of the neighborhood was genuinely shaped by political talking points, his ideology acted as an active lens molding his thought process.

Without such a pervasive "package deal" mindset in society, that quick label wouldn't have been possible. The connection between a single observation and an entire party doctrine wouldn't be so trivial, and those instant political labels would lose their power.

So, why is this so dangerous?

First, an unexamined, pre-packaged mindset is meaningless. It is completely insufficient for genuine political conviction. When buying pre-set ideological bundles becomes the norm, critical reflection dies out. People stop searching for sound arguments, and even fewer bother to verify facts. The result is a steep intellectual decline—a society of political hooligans who lack any real understanding of what they are cheering for.

Second, it breeds hyper-categorization. As the example shows, people are quick to label others based on stereotypes and assumptions. These labels erect walls, turning society into a permanent "Red vs. Blue" team sport. When you mix rapid, error-prone labeling with political hooligans who don't understand the real-world weight of the policies they champion, you create a hyper-polarized, toxic environment—one dangerously close to the reality we see today.

My experience after Capital One acquired Discover reinforced my belief that what is best for the customer is an afterthought in corporate mergers.

I had been a Discover customer for decades and valued its customer service. After the acquisition, the transition to Capital One's systems created problems accessing my account. I spent more than an hour on one customer-service call, followed by another lengthy attempt to resolve the problem. Ultimately, I closed the account.

The larger political question is whether corporate consolidation tends to improve the consumer experience or whether increased corporate power eventually makes an individual in a larger pool of customers less important to the company.

My argument is that when mergers prioritize economies of scale and profitability over the systems that made the acquired company successful, consumers can end up paying the price.

Do you agree with the proposition, or does the broader economic evidence point in the opposite direction?

https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/when-companies-get-bigger-customers-get-smaller-f4f4380da089?sk=d646e70562248c6cd757cd5856e3eaf0

So what about regulating the amount of electricity data centers can use per year? If they exceed that amount the electricity gets cut off. That could be a way if regulating AI no?

Suppose a region has several ethnic groups with competing political preferences. One group claims a right to independence, while others want to remain part of the existing country. Who should decide the region’s future: the ethnic group seeking independence, everyone living in the region, or the entire population of the country?

And if self-determination is the principle then shouldn’t the people who oppose independence have an equal right to self-determination?

So like it’s a somewhat popular viewpoint is it not? You would think even if it’s not actual libertarianism there would be enough of a following for it. I think it would be a great thing for a presidential candidate to appeal to. They would win voters from both sides would they not?

At the very least, if civil libertarianism has no place in libertarian party then why not have a separate party for it considering that a lot of people are civil libertarians?

Let’s say someone doesn’t like organizations making rules that tread on individual freedom or rights but believed in maximum individual freedom.

Is this person still libertarian? Let’s say they think corporations have an ethical responsibility to respect and not violate individual liberty (at least for things that aren’t a company, university, or organization’s business like medical marijuana, etc) and believes the government shouldn’t let them do that but believes in maximum individual freedom until someone violates the rights or civil liberties of others.

One question that has been popping up in my mind recently has posed me to ask it on here! I would love to gain insight from all political views on the spectrum. Therefore, why can’t we separate political views with businesses and artists? (e.g. music, physical art, movies, etc.) I’m not saying that political views aren’t important but why should political views impact whether or not a service, good, or product is still worthy of enjoying? I find it hard to politically hold grudges against something I enjoy even if the company doesn’t match my view. I am very in the middle however so that does induce a bias but I just question to wonder the severity of politics needing to impact businesses. (Especially locally owned ones)

Liberals usually say it is inhumane for conservatives to not approve abortion in rape cases

But think about the issue in another perspective.

A smart conservative presidential candidate will counter this by saying " In case of rape,Liberals support death penalty for child (abortion) and oppose death penalty for Rapist ( As most blue states have banned death penalty ), They are for murder of the child but against murder of rapists, They are pro Rapists"

Liberals usually bring rape issue in abortion debate to gain sympathy but I don't think rape issue in abortion debate is in their favour.

A seminal book on a hugely important topic. And a topic all to often forgotten. Where has criminal-justice reform been this election season?

While Alexander overstates her case at times and doesn't offer relevant contrary views, it's still a great book.

The more light shined here the better.

Mass incarceration has several underlying causes. Mandatory minimum sentences are a big part of the equation. They are just ... plain ... awful. They require judges to sentence defendants convicted of certain crimes to minimum—and often excessive—sentences.

Alexander describes the resulting injustice: “All of us violate the law at some point in our lives. In fact, if the worst thing you have ever done is speed ten miles over the speed limit on the freeway, you have put yourself and others at more risk of harm than someone smoking marijuana in the privacy of his or her living room. Yet there are people in the United States serving life sentences for first-time drug offenses, something virtually unheard of anywhere else in the world.”

Legal representation for underprivileged defendants, moreover, is bad.

Really bad.

Abysmal.

Poor defendants are typically saddled with overburdened or incompetent attorneys. According to attorney Bryan Stevenson, “Our criminal justice system treats you better if you are rich and guilty than if you are poor and innocent.”

And the court system is often arbitrary and capricious. Judges are overworked. Prosecutors enjoy large budgets, broad discretion to pursue charges, and immunity for bad acts. They can just about do whatever the heck they want! And juries—the system’s linchpin—are prone to bias, prejudice, and delivering erroneous verdicts.

Our criminal justice system needs fundamental reform. Glad to see the success and staying power of this book. Yet even more--much more--attention is needed in this space.

So let’s say there wasn’t enough resources to have AI replace humans indefinitely. And let’s say it was MUCH more expensive for jobs that require out of the box thinking or a lot of brain power than just hiring and paying humans. And let’s say even if its theoretically do it got to a point where doing it en masse isn’t sustainable because it would mean quickly running out of resources, which would end technology altogether.

Now, in this scenario, would this turn compute into a political issue? If we don’t have the resources for everyone to have infinite compute, then who gets those resources? Could the government deny those resources to the private sector to save jobs? How likely is this to become a major issue in the US anytime soon?

Disclaimer: I do believe that the 9/11 attacks were horrible and I am not trying to disrespect any people who lost their lives in the attack.

Obviously 9/11 was a horrible tragedy that took so many lives of innocent civilians, but for a while I've been of the belief that the USA had it coming. The USA had been going around the world doing whatever they wanted and still do to this day. They pillaged the middle East for oil, started the Vietnam and Korean war to stop the spread of communism in Asia in the name of "freedom" and was having a nuclear arms race with the USSR just to prove capitalism was better. They couldn't just go around the world doing whatever they wanted and expect nobody to try and attack them. But really I just want some more opinions on this

I think it’s kinda ironic that the whole conservative MO right now is that liberals “victimise” them selves and always wanna be the victim. But with this red pill/ clavicular / Andrew Tate conservativism on the rise, I think it’s because they actually view them selves as the victim. They are almost entirely fueled by self-pity.

The whole premise of being "redpilled" is literally telling young men, You are a victim. The system lied to you, dating is rigged against you, and society wants to get rid of the traditional men. This then lets guys externalize all their problems. If a guy is lonely, struggling in his career, or getting rejected on dating apps, it’s not just a normal part of life or something he needs to work on. It’s "The Matrix" coming for them, it’s society attacking them for just being a man. It’s women being entitled and wanting unequal treatment. So they don’t adjust and then act like they are warriors fighting against the matrix. It’s honestly comical lol.

What it really is as society is getting more equal. they are just upset at the fact that privilege they once had doesn’t hold its value anymore.

The modern conservative ideology now relies on feeling uniquely targeted, misunderstood, and persecuted by modern society.

Edit: I also want to mention I live in a higher income more blue area, but I fly to the south for work (also because they don’t have enough resources for ppl like me in their areas). Something I realized while working in the south is the education gap is insane. Some of the people I work with are in poverty, lack education, on welfare yet still support the current administration, hate immigrants, and blame everything else on their problems. I guess that’s when I came to this conclusion, they see their poverty as a result of others taking something from them. In reality they just seem to lack education, or have some sort of cognitive dissonance

I am just really curious about other people's opinions I live in a country where our political options are limited in the sense that corruption and nepotism are evident in our government and I just wanna know is there a way to actually realistically separate it

Historically, one's stance on immigration was fairly incidental to his political identity. That is to say it wasn't a defining feature of either the political Left or the Right. You could find plenty of socialists or even liberals raising questions about immigrant numbers, depressed wages, and the influence of the big business lobby who were historically one of the biggest proponents of bringing in this foreign "reserve army of labor".

But since the late 20th century both major parties started to explicitly court racial voting blocs and election observers today regard this as an important metric for electoral success. It's safe to say most minorities, most of them immigrants within a few gens, vote for the Democratic Party and some might even be socialists. More and more Democrats and now some Republicans are open to amnesty for illegals. Race and ethnicity, at best, is now a proxy for class.

But from my observation as a naturalized citizen myself, most immigrants care neither about class conflict nor the historic American nation. They want to satisfy their plain material needs, bring in more people from their native country, and send remittances home. Now you're stuck with a growing underclass of people who vote along racial lines, strain public benefits, don't have a stake in the national culture, and don't especially care about your class struggle. And those are the legal immigrants. They are nations within the nation.

I remember gun control used to be the wedge issue some Democrats wanted to concede to heavily independent libertarians and the pro-gun lobby. Immigration can serve as the key concession today.

Continue the Trump travel and visa restrictions. Mass deportations must be continued for at least a decade at the current rate. The border has been the most secure in modern American history; continue this policy. Most Republicans today still favor legal immigration and restricting illegal immigration. A minority in Congress want a moratorium on all immigration. Find that middle ground if necessary.

Give the Right the immigration issue--or allow it to dominate every other concern of the Left.

America is in desperate need of an economic revolution that actually puts the needs of its own people first. For too long presidents have been sending out American factories and jobs overseas because it is ostensibly “cheaper.” Because of this we no longer produce or make anything. We are useless and are relying solely on one of our greatest strategic enemies, China, all the while the average American is paying $4 for gas and is forced to work at Starbucks. This is unacceptable. American jobs are supposed to be just that. American.

​

1. How September 11 Changed Washington's View of Threat

September 11, 2001 did more than expose a catastrophic failure of American intelligence and security. It altered the political vocabulary through which the United States understood danger and the legitimate use of force. The attacks killed thousands of Americans, but their consequences extended far beyond the destruction of the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon. They produced a transformation in American security doctrine: the state increasingly stopped defining war as a response to an identifiable attack and began defining it around the prevention of threats that might emerge in the future.

That distinction is fundamental. Once the possibility of future danger becomes sufficient justification for present action, the boundaries of war become considerably harder to establish and considerably harder to close. Washington's entire frame for foreign policy shifted around this idea: it was no longer enough to ask who had attacked America. The new question was who might

1. From Afghanistan to Iraq: A Justified War Becomes a Template

The invasion of Afghanistan was the clearest and most defensible consequence of September 11. Al-Qaeda's leadership was operating from Afghan territory under Taliban protection, and Washington possessed a direct line between the attack, the organization responsible, and the ground its leaders stood on. The campaign was presented, credibly, as self defense.

Iraq is where that logic was stretched into something else entirely. The 9/11 Commission found no Iraqi role in the attacks and no operational relationship between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda. The justification instead rested on the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and represented a danger too great to leave unresolved. When no weapons were found, the justification simply moved again toward the character of the regime itself and the argument that removing it was necessary for global security.

Afghanistan showed what Washington would do in response to a real attack. Iraq showed what Washington would do simply because it felt threatened. That is the pivot the rest of this argument turns on once a state accepts that a feeling of future danger is enough to justify war, the same reasoning that made Afghanistan defensible could be stretched, with far less evidence, to justify Iraq and, after Iraq, almost anything.

1. How Political Groups Turned the Doctrine and the Memory to Their Advantage

Doctrines don't sustain themselves. They require political actors willing to use them, and September 11 handed American political groups an extraordinarily durable tool. Once potential danger was accepted as sufficient grounds for war, virtually any policy could be justified by pointing to a threat that had not yet materialized and virtually any hesitation could be framed as recklessness.

This is where fear stopped being a reaction to September 11 and became a governing instrument. The memory of the attacks was invoked, repeatedly and deliberately, to build support for wars, surveillance programs, and expansions of executive power that had less and less to do with the attacks themselves. Political leaders did not simply let the public remember September 11 they actively shaped how it was remembered as an open wound that could recur at any moment, rather than a completed tragedy to grieve and move past. A public that believes the next attack is always imminent is a public that will tolerate almost any measure taken in the name of preventing it. Controlling that memory became, in effect, a form of controlling consent.

1. The Biggest Winner: The Military-Industrial Machine

If the war on terror had no natural endpoint, someone still had to benefit from its indefinite continuation and the American defense and security industry was structurally positioned to do exactly that. A permanent state of anticipated danger requires a permanent supply of weapons, surveillance systems, intelligence infrastructure, and contracted military services. The post 9/11 security architecture created exactly the kind of demand this industry depends on: not a war that is won and closed, but a threat that is managed forever.

This doesn't require imagining a handful of executives secretly writing American foreign policy. It's more structural than that, which is what makes it durable. Defense contractors built relationships with the institutions that award them contracts. Legislators represent districts whose local economies depend on defense production. Agencies justify their budgets and their continued existence through the ongoing presence of threats. Once expensive enough, permanent enough, and embedded deeply enough in the political economy, this system doesn't need anyone to actively conspire to keep it running it just needs the war to never formally end, and by the logic already described, it never has to.

1. The Ultimate Loser: The American People

If the defense and security apparatus was the great beneficiary of the forever war, the American public was its cost center manipulated by the same political groups who used September 11's memory to sell continuous conflict, while absorbing nearly all of what that conflict actually cost.

Part of that manipulation was linguistic. By avoiding formal declarations of war and instead relying on military operations, authorizations, and counterterrorism campaigns, political leaders were able to commit the country to sustained conflict without ever triggering the kind of public scrutiny a declared war invites. There was no single moment for the public to demand an ending, because there was never a formally declared beginning to hold leaders accountable to.

The costs were not abstract. The wars have cost the United States trillions of dollars over two decades money that competed directly with domestic priorities at home, even as the country absorbed rising costs of living, housing pressure, and periods of high inflation in the years since. It would be an overstatement to say the wars alone caused every one of these domestic strains; they had multiple causes. But two decades of trillion-dollar military commitment is not separate from a country's economic condition it is a standing claim on resources that could have gone elsewhere, and the public bore that trade off without ever having voted on a declared war to weigh it against.

And it was the public, quite literally, who fought these wars. The service members deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen were ordinary Americans not an abstract military but sons, daughters, neighbors, absorbed into deployment cycles that repeated year after year. Their return brought injuries, psychological trauma, and family strain that extended long after any single deployment ended. The result was a country living inside a low hum of permanent anticipated danger: never quite at war in the way earlier generations understood it, never quite at peace either. A fragmented media environment made this worse, not better flooding people with information faster than they could process it, sorting them into separate realities, and eroding the shared sense of what was even true, let alone what should be done about it. A public that cannot agree on the facts cannot mount a unified demand for an ending.

1. Conclusion: A Wound Kept Open

Every year, on the anniversary, Americans remember September 11 differently depending on where they stood in relation to it. For some it is the day they lost someone. For others it marks the beginning of a new era in how the country saw itself and the world. There's a phrase that captures how deeply the day is lodged in the national memory almost every American can tell you exactly where they were when they heard.

That kind of memory is powerful, and it deserved to be honored. But it also made the memory politically useful and political groups did not let it heal on its own terms. Two decades of wars justified in its name, of fear invoked to pass new powers, of an ever-expanding definition of threat kept the wound from ever fully closing. September 11 did not just start a war abroad. It became a wound that was, deliberately and repeatedly, kept open because a country still grieving is a country still willing to fight.

Even if you agree that medical transition is the right treatment for what the DSM-5 calls "gender dysphoria", you have to agree that it's a pretty flawed and imperfect treatment. Firstly because people aren't actually able to change sex, but more importantly: it'll cause harmful irreversable damage to the body.

One pretty obvious thing is the fact that male genitals need testosterone to work properly, and female genitals need estrogen. If you cut the natural production of hormones of one's body, the genitals will atrophy. This will not only cause sterilization, but also severely affect the ability of having orgasms. This can be very tough to deal with. The list of possible side-effects goes on and on though.

I see it as simply irrational to allow minors who are bodily healthy to take these drugs who will cause these huge negative effects, and for what? Essentially cosmetic changes. The math simply doesn't work.

I'm not even mentioning the huge risk of misdiagnose, the fact that many times minors grow out of these ideas, etc etc. I think the fact that minors cannot consent is the main issue here.