u/Great-Exercise4277

Agreed.

As someone who grew up outside the Western cultural sphere, I find this a significant barrier when trying to participate in discussions. Biblical references, classical literature, everyday expressions, lines from well-known novels, even Latin phrases… I often have to look them up one by one just to follow the conversation.

I wrote this text, and ChatGPT translated it.

I'm not American, so I'm simply watching the upcoming midterm elections from the sidelines. As for my political views, I suppose they're partly moderately conservative, but mostly moderately left-wing.

I'd like to consider whether there is even a little truth to the claim that "the left is pushing people to the right."

Of course, I'm not saying this applies to everyone on the left.

Some people on the left are actively involved in environmental movements. I myself am also strongly committed to addressing climate change, so I'm interested in what measures are actually being taken in the United States. However, among these people, there were some who noticeably changed their attitude and ended the conversation once they learned that I wasn't American and that talking with me wouldn't lead to a vote for the Democratic Party.

Isn't it possible that this kind of attitude from some people on the left could actually provoke a backlash among moderates?

This occurred to me as I was reading the OP's argument.

Let me use veganism as an example. I have some understanding of veganism itself, but I oppose imposing one's beliefs on growing family members who say they want to eat meat, forcing them to change their preferences. However, some vegans try to judge people who eat meat based on the belief that "if causing suffering can be avoided, it should be avoided, and those who don't avoid it are immoral."

I think the availability and price of vegan food, and how accommodating society is toward vegans, vary greatly between cultures. However, they don't take these factors into account.

Does this way of thinking sound familiar? The idea that one's own beliefs are supreme and correct, and that other values are wrong and should be corrected?

It seems to me that MAGA supporters argue that Americans and Christians like themselves should be given greater priority, and that they treat "everyone else" as less important. I feel that some people on the left regard their own values and their own sense of justice as supreme, and try to judge "everyone else" as wrong. (Again, I don't mean everyone.)

Looking at it from the outside, I feel that precisely these kinds of attitudes on both sides may be fueling division in America.

Of course, people should take responsibility for their own political choices. However, I don't think we need to deny the possibility that words and actions that exclude others can provoke a political backlash.

I wrote this text, and ChatGPT translated it.

Research on gene editing was being conducted long before AI. There is a significant difference between AI being useful for gene-editing research and gene editing being impossible without AI.

Both my child and I have autistic traits, but even if a treatment were available, I would refuse it if asked whether I wanted it.

Autism, in particular, is associated with numerous genetic variations, and their combinations can have both beneficial and detrimental effects. Gene editing may be effective for diseases caused by a single gene, but in conditions involving multiple genes, such as autism, it is entirely possible that "replacing a gene to address one symptom could result in another, more serious symptom emerging."

Also, autism involves an uneven developmental profile. The OP may be looking only at its disadvantages, but it also includes traits that can be advantageous in certain circumstances. Autistic traits can also be found to varying degrees in people considered neurotypical. An autism diagnosis is made through a comprehensive assessment of characteristics such as social communication, behavior, and their impact on daily life.

I would like to point out that autism is not something a person can simply be freed from by modifying a few genes.

CRISPR-GPT, introduced in 2025, is a system that assists with guide RNA design, experimental planning, and data analysis.

What the research paper actually demonstrated was gene-editing experiments using human-derived cancer cell lines, among other things. It did not demonstrate a treatment for autism or the ability to design complex human traits.

Gene editing is already being applied to medical treatments in humans. However, editing somatic cells and editing embryos to design complex traits in the humans who will develop from them are entirely different matters.

Editing hundreds of genes, checking all the side effects, actually editing human embryos and observing the people who develop from them, and sufficiently demonstrating their safety would involve enormous time constraints and ethical limitations.

How could we verify unintended changes, effects on development, or impacts on future generations?

I don't think AI would make all of this possible.

I wrote this text, and ChatGPT translated it.

First, I'm concerned about the burden on children if another subject is simply added to the curriculum. We could remove unnecessary subjects and add one that teaches social skills. But what subjects are unnecessary? I can't think of any that should be removed. So would we simply increase the number of hours children spend in class?

I agree that this is knowledge necessary for life, and that it should be taught at some point.

I don't know how things are in the US, but when I was little, we had a subject called "Moral Education," and I hated it. It felt like we were expected to "think about how the characters felt and give the model answers the teacher wanted."

Even if children are taught that people think a certain way in a particular situation, that doesn't mean it applies in every case.

I also question whether there are absolute standards that apply to everyone when judging which relationships are healthy and which are unhealthy, apart from clear cases such as abuse.

I'm not very confident that teaching children with little life experience about things that depend on the person and the situation, as part of a school curriculum, would work well.

I wrote this text, and ChatGPT translated it.

I imagine very few people would continue discussing a post after it's been removed. I'm not sure it's worth the effort of introducing a bot just for that. But thank you.

You believe that people on the French side are looking for excuses to attack Japanese people, but I don't think that intention alone is enough to explain the current conflict.

I think that, for the average Japanese person, France is simply "a wealthy, developed country that cares about environmental protection and makes wine and things like that." Japanese media don't cover much international news.

Then came the news of riots, and perhaps many Japanese people were shocked to see the police using force against students in France, a country they had thought was peaceful.

The problem here is that information claiming that "Muslim rioters locked high school students inside a building and burned them to death" was spreading on Japanese social media. I'm not saying this was the cause of everything, but there may have been people who believed this false information and became outraged.

I don't know what the person who originally wrote it intended. Perhaps they simply find it amusing to watch Japanese people who believed it argue with French people. And finding out who made the original post would require a great deal of effort.

I don't think the mutual insults on social media are a matter of the French being at fault or the Japanese being at fault.

There are people everywhere who enjoy exaggerating rumors or adding lies to them. Isn't the real problem that, on social media, the cost of creating lies and the cost of verifying them are so disproportionately different? I think the people who are now insulting each other are simply people who have been taken in by this and failed to fact-check, or people who have jumped on the bandwagon to vent their anger and frustration.

I wrote this comment myself, and ChatGPT translated it.

I think it's problematic to hold minors under the age of 18, who are not eligible to vote in presidential elections, responsible. I don't think they've had enough time to shape the culture you're talking about.

For example, telling a 10-year-old American child, "Your country elected Trump, so you have no right to complain even if his policies negatively affect you," seems logically unreasonable.

Edit: Added that minors under 18 are not eligible to vote.

In my country, induction cooktops are widely used.

One advantage of induction cooking is safety, especially in the home.

For example, they can reduce the risk of fires caused by elderly people with dementia forgetting to turn off a gas burner. They also allow young children to try cooking relatively safely under adult supervision.

What do you think about these safety advantages?

Some people with mental health conditions or neurodevelopmental traits simply cannot adapt to work. It is not a matter of their motivation or effort.

For example, some people struggle with executive functioning. They feel a sense of obligation to work, yet they simply cannot get themselves to do it.

Others experience burnout. Even though they know they need to get up and work, one day they suddenly find themselves unable to function and end up staying in bed.

There are also people whose mental health deteriorates under stress, leaving them unable to do work they previously handled with ease. They have described experiences such as "My mind goes completely blank" or "I used to be able to do this, but now I just can't."

People experiencing homelessness have many different circumstances.

People who have lost their jobs through misfortune and could work again with appropriate housing and employment support.
People struggling with drug or alcohol addiction.
People who experienced mental burnout and unfortunately had no family to support them when it happened.
People with mental health conditions or disabilities that make ordinary employment difficult.
People who simply cannot adapt to conventional forms of work.

I read your proposed policy. I think it could be very helpful for certain groups of people. There are certainly people who could obtain housing, receive vocational training, and return to a stable life. I think it would be good to help those people.

However, with current medical care, there are still people who cannot work even after receiving adequate treatment and support.

I feel that your policy does not sufficiently address people who cannot perform any of the jobs offered (for example, elderly people with dementia or people whose disabilities make ordinary employment difficult), people who have become unable to function due to burnout and stress, or people who need to rebuild their lives while caring for their children.

What would happen to people who receive medical care and vocational training at your facilities but still cannot work?

Would long-term housing and living support be provided for them? Or would they be unable to leave the support facilities and live independently unless they could find employment?

I wrote this comment myself, and ChatGPT translated it.

I am not an American citizen, and I am neither a Democratic nor a Republican supporter. I haven't watched the video you posted, either. Therefore, I don't have enough background knowledge to debate American politics with supporters of either party.

There is one thing I would like to ask.

If someone explained, with supporting evidence, that "Democratic supporters are defending Senator Slotkin not because they support political persecution, but because they interpret her remarks as calling for accountability for illegal acts," would you consider changing your view that Democratic supporters condone political persecution?

Or would that explanation not change your view?

I ask because, under CMV's rules, it is entirely legitimate for top-level comments to challenge the OP's view.

Are you willing to change your own view? If so, what kind of evidence would lead you to change your mind?

I wrote this text, and ChatGPT translated it.

Thank you very much.

In my country, Halloween is a very new event (when I was a child, people didn't even know it existed).

Nowadays, Halloween has also become commercially widespread, with pumpkin sweets and dishes, jack-o'-lanterns, Halloween candy sets, and so on. It has also become popular as a fun (though somewhat of a nuisance) event where people dress up in costumes and take to the streets.

For me, it actually became an opportunity to take an interest in its historical background (All Saints' Day, and old traditions and festivals from before the arrival of Christianity). I always enjoy learning about and thinking about festivals and customs from other cultures that I've never heard of.

I wrote this text, and ChatGPT translated it.

The cultural value of Halloween does not necessarily diminish just because traditional themes are not placed at its center.

My country has no tradition of Halloween. We don't have a Christian cultural background either, but people seem to have adopted Christmas and Halloween in their own ways and enjoy them. Young people dress up and participate in events without knowing anything about the background of these holidays.

In my culture, there are separate rituals for reflecting deeply together on mortality and on the people who are no longer in this world. Halloween (and Christmas, too) is simply a date on the calendar for stepping away from everyday life and enjoying an atmosphere from a foreign culture.

Is there any meaning in that?

One thing I can point to is that looking forward to an event and preparing for it makes life more enjoyable.

Also, as one of the benefits in non-European cultures, I would like to mention that it can provide an opportunity to become interested in and understand other cultures.

Children who enjoy Halloween may begin to wonder, "Why do people dress up as ghosts and witches?" or "Why pumpkins?" They may become curious, and from there develop an interest in European culture and traditions. I think that could make it a sufficiently meaningful event.

I wrote this comment myself, and ChatGPT translated it.

Hello. So you're still in your twenties.

This is just one perspective based on my personal views. I hope it might be helpful.

Even if you buy a property now, you might not end up living in it in the future. Your job or lifestyle might change, and you don't yet know where you'll want to live in the future.

There are advantages and disadvantages to owning a property you don't live in. If you manage to buy a property in a desirable area, you might be able to expect high returns. On the other hand, if you rent it out, managing a property comes with its share of stress, including problems with tenants, natural disasters, and repairs.

You're worried about an article saying that "a collapse of the dollar is imminent," aren't you? It's true that the US government's interest payments on its debt are increasing, but that alone doesn't mean a collapse of the dollar is imminent. Wherever you look in the world, there's plenty of pessimistic news. So while I can't say what will happen in the long term, I don't think there's as much reason to be pessimistic in the short term as you seem to believe. (Please don't use my personal opinion as a basis for your investment decisions.)

Your way of thinking is familiar to me. It's the feeling of being anxious about world affairs, connecting multiple news stories together, and ending up unable to see a solution, with every possible choice still leaving you worried.

The growing burden of US government interest payments is real. However, additional conditions would have to be met for that to lead to a collapse of the dollar. Furthermore, a significant decline in the dollar's value is not the same thing as the global economy falling into a depression. The possibility that AI could bring major changes to employment is also not the same as you personally losing your job in the future.

I understand your anxiety. But I don't think the future is hopeless. Some things will get worse. But other things will remain as they are, or may even improve over the long term.

It's painful to keep thinking about money and the future. You've spent a long time saving money to buy a home, and now you're struggling with how to protect that money and what to do with it.

It seems to me that your efforts to prepare for the future have ended up taking away your peace of mind in the present.

Another person has already objected to the view that Japan is a "de facto one-party state," but I would like to raise that objection again.

If anything, I feel it would be more accurate to describe Japan as a country that has failed to achieve success because it has been so focused on avoiding failure.

"A country where the same party keeps winning elections for a long time" and "a political system in which other parties cannot gain power" are not the same thing. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has actually lost power several times.

In the summer of 1989, the Socialist Party, a left-wing party, made major electoral gains. Later, from August 1993 to June 1994, a coalition government without the LDP was formed, lasting about ten months.

This was followed by the government of Tomiichi Murayama, an unusual arrangement in which the LDP and a left-wing party worked together, with the leader of the left-wing party serving as prime minister. It lasted about a year and a half.

From January 1996, for about ten months, the prime minister came from the LDP, but the coalition government remained unchanged.

Starting in 1999, for nearly ten years, the LDP was unable to govern on its own, and Komeito, a centrist party with religious roots, cooperated with the LDP to form a coalition government.

From 2009, for a little over three years, the Democratic Party of Japan, a centrist party encompassing both conservatives and the left, held power.

For the following twelve years, the LDP and Komeito formed coalition governments. Just a year ago, Komeito ended the coalition, which shows that it had not simply been absorbed into the LDP. It had its own policies and worked with the LDP in elections while having its own policies reflected in government.

The LDP and Komeito governed together for more than twenty years in total, with the Democratic Party government in between.

In Japan, not only the number of seats held by each party, but also negotiations between parties and changes in coalition arrangements have even determined which party provides the prime minister.

Given that there have been multiple changes of government and changes in coalition arrangements, Japan is not an appropriate example of one-party dictatorship.

Because there are multiple parties, it can be said that voters have more choices than in a two-party system. This is not the kind of stability found in a one-party dictatorship.

I would like to raise one point that seems strange to me, looking at the American two-party system from the outside. I think that when the Republican Party adopts a certain policy, the Democratic Party tends to adopt a policy on the opposite side. Even if a voter decides that they support this Republican policy but prefer the Democratic Party's policy on another issue, they ultimately have to choose one of the two packages. I think this may be a problem.

If there were Republican Party A, Republican Party B, and Republican Party C, along with Democratic Party A, Democratic Party B, and Democratic Party C（Imagine these parties arranged along the political spectrum, from the far right to the far left.）, voters would probably find it easier to choose policies that better matched their preferences. Perhaps Republican Party C and Democratic Parties A and B might form a coalition and govern together.

Such a government probably would not remain stable for a long time, but it might be able to accomplish more.

I doubt this would ever happen, but it is just a thought experiment.

I wrote this comment myself, and ChatGPT translated it.

How does the example of rape you gave correspond to my argument?

Rape is an act that violates another person's bodily and sexual autonomy. In contrast, in discussions about eating meat, the very question of what moral status or rights animals should be granted is at issue. You cannot skip over that question and place both under the same duty to intervene.

What I said was that we need to distinguish between "choosing what to eat based on one's own ethical values" and "using those ethical values as a basis for judging what other people should eat."

Why are you expanding that into "Even if you think an act is wrong, it's just a personal opinion, so you shouldn't tell other people to stop doing it"?

I was discussing the grounds for applying one's personal ethical values to others. I was not saying that even clear violations of rights should be left alone as matters of personal opinion. I think that generalizing my argument in that way turns it into a rebuttal of a position I do not defend.

I wrote this comment myself, and ChatGPT translated it.

I sometimes continue discussing things with the OP even after their post has been removed.

However, since the original post is no longer visible, I find it somewhat difficult to respond while referring back to the OP's original views.

But keeping a copy of the entire post of everyone I've replied to for a while, just for that purpose, feels somehow wrong to me...

I can't think of a solution to this. I suppose I'll just have to continue responding based on what I can remember.

I wrote this comment myself, and ChatGPT translated it.

For example, suppose an OP claims that "most women are XX," "these kinds of people always do XX," or "Reddit (or a particular subreddit) is not fair."

If someone responds, "The people I know aren't like that," the OP can reply, "Those aren't the people I'm talking about," or "But I've actually experienced this." Other participants don't share the definition of the group that exists in the OP's mind.

Even if a new rule were added, it wouldn't reach people who post without reading the rules, and it would make the rules even longer.

In cases like these, I feel that a possible approach, without making the rules more complicated, would be for participants to first ask the OP to clarify the following:

"Please define the group you're criticizing. If possible, please provide some concrete examples as well. And what would need to be shown for you to change your view?"

I wrote this comment myself, and ChatGPT translated it.

I think we need to make a distinction here.

Isn't the problem, in the first place, when someone tries to impose a diet based on their own ethical beliefs on others, or tries to persuade others to adopt those beliefs?

Someone says they don't want to eat intelligent living beings. Those are your values, so you're free to make that choice.

Someone else says they don't want to eat any meat at all. I respect your values.

But isn't the real problem the attitude of judging others by saying, "I hold these ethical beliefs. Therefore, eating 'intelligent living beings / animals / living things on this side of a certain boundary' is wrong"?

Edit:

Saying "It is wrong to eat certain animals, such as octopuses and pigs, because of their intelligence" is an attitude of judging others.

Saying "I don't want to eat living beings that are thought to be intelligent" is simply an expression of personal opinion.

I'm suggesting that we should distinguish between these two.

I wrote this comment myself, and ChatGPT translated it.

Your claim is that "short women have it worse than short men," correct?

On what basis do you judge the disadvantages experienced by short men to be less severe than those experienced by short women?

I think it would be more appropriate to say that "short women also face difficulties, but in different areas from short men."

As far as I understand, short men mainly report experiencing significant disadvantages in social situations. (At least, that's what I've seen on Reddit.)

On the other hand, the disadvantages you described for short women were "being unable to reach things," "being at greater risk in traffic accidents and other situations," "becoming physically tired," and "being teased about their height." Can these two kinds of disadvantages be quantitatively evaluated?

You are comparing women who are around 157 cm tall with men who are around 165–170 cm tall. However, this is not a comparison between men and women of the same height, but between men and women who are considered short for their respective sexes. When discussing physical inconveniences, absolute height matters. On the other hand, when discussing social evaluations, I think what matters is how far someone's height deviates from the average for their sex.

You are using two different standards while comparing them as a single measure of how difficult life is. Is that comparison appropriate?

There is one point in your post that I find problematic. Is it appropriate to treat the standards of professions that select people based on appearance as general societal standards of beauty? This CMV is about comparing short women with short men, correct?

Are you trying to compare short women with models, celebrities, and other people whom everyone admires, or are you trying to compare short men with short women? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say, "Both face difficulties, but at least based on the evidence presented, we cannot determine which group has it worse"?

I wrote this comment myself, and ChatGPT translated it.

Thank you for your reply.

Thank you for giving me a concrete example. To be honest, it's difficult for me to understand how you could be accused of racism in a situation like that. I've never encountered anything like this around me, and I can hardly imagine it, but based on what you've told me, it seems that you're being unfairly accused. That must be stressful.

As for your question about whether I think people wouldn't accuse someone of racism, in my country, situations where racial differences are visibly apparent are relatively uncommon, so I can't judge what would happen in a similar situation. People who are perceived as foreigners because of their appearance are sometimes stared at with curiosity (which I'm embarrassed to admit).

In your example, I think accusing someone of racism simply for stopping shoplifting misses the point. Regardless of race, shoplifting is a crime in the first place. If you acted because of the shoplifting rather than the person's race, then accusing you of racism would be inappropriate.

I don't think you need to generalize too much from these experiences. You could also think, "Maybe they were angry about being caught shoplifting and were just lashing out."

I think having a job where you have to suspect people of possible shoplifting and monitor them must be difficult. I hope you won't let the stress weigh on you too much.

I wrote this comment myself, and ChatGPT translated it.

I have been following Chinese media closely for a long time, because I live in a country that is heavily affected by developments in China.

The Communist Party positions its political theory as an understanding of the objective laws of social development.
And they place great importance on the word "scientific."
This comes from Marx and Engels' idea of scientific socialism.

Their premise is that, unlike other political systems, they are scientifically correct.

The Chinese Communist Party places importance on linking achievements in science and technology to national development and its own legitimacy. They view the word "science" positively. However, they do not allow their own legitimacy to be questioned.

Also, science really is a foundation of national development.
China historically had a system known as the imperial examinations, and there is a long tradition of linking the acquisition of knowledge to social status. The modern Chinese Communist Party connects this tradition with the value of national scientific and technological development.

For the Chinese Communist Party, national development is the result of scientific thinking, the Communist Party is scientifically correct, and great scientists are the foundation of the nation. I think this way of thinking is why scientists can be featured on billboards.

I cannot say exactly when this began, but I have repeatedly seen articles in the People's Daily about "scientists who studied in America, achieved great things, but returned to their homeland to contribute to its development and helped lay the foundations of science education in their country."

I think the people featured in the current article are also easy to use in advertisements precisely because they are "exemplary scientists who contributed to the nation through their scientific achievements."

"Praising scientists" and "respecting science itself" are not the same thing. What the Chinese Communist Party celebrates is not only the pursuit of scientific inquiry, but also a particular ideal of scientists who contribute to the nation.

I wrote this text, and ChatGPT translated it.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

In the end, the OP's post was removed.

If someone is accused of racism simply for commenting on a personality mismatch in a single interaction, I think they could just chalk it up to having encountered a strange person.

However, if the OP has experienced the same situation so many times that they feel the need to generalize, perhaps there is a problem with how they express themselves, or perhaps what they call "personality" includes judgments related to race or sexual orientation.

I get the impression that this is more or less what many people in this CMV were pointing out.

I wrote this text, and ChatGPT translated it.

Suppose there was a planet in a star system. Let's assume it had water, and that very simple life, such as bacteria, had arisen there. Due to a binary star system or some astronomical misfortune, the planet gets ejected. It becomes a rogue planet. Its surface might freeze, but a small ecosystem might survive around hotspots where geothermal heat escapes.

After wandering for hundreds of millions or billions of years, it enters a forming star system. Whether the planet itself remains there or breaks apart, there is a possibility that materials produced by biological activity, or primitive life itself, could be transferred to that star system.

I don't know how likely such a route is in reality. But can we really conclude that there is no plausible possibility of interstellar life transfer?

You said that, as far as you know, "there is no plausible interstellar life travel in the panspermia theories," so I thought I'd play around with the idea a little.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-020-09591-z

On A Hypothetical Mechanism of Interstellar Life Transfer Trough Nomadic Objects

I wrote this text, and ChatGPT translated it.

I don't understand how simply expressing that you don't like someone could suddenly lead to being accused of racism or homophobia.

For example:

"I just don't really get along with that person."

"You're being homophobic."

Is that the kind of conversation that took place? To me, these statements don't connect at all.

What exactly did you say, and what exactly did the other person say? Without knowing the specific words exchanged, we can't distinguish between a situation where you genuinely disliked someone solely because of their personality and one where the other person had some reason to believe you disliked them because of their race or sexual orientation.

What puzzles me is that I completely agree with the claim in your title that "not liking someone because of their personality isn't homophobic or racist; it's just a choice." But I find the situation where someone is called homophobic or racist simply because they dislike another person's personality puzzling in the first place.

I wrote this text, and ChatGPT translated it.

Could it be because you've already assumed the conclusion that "a certain population has higher intelligence than average for genetic reasons"?

For example, suppose a certain population has a tradition of valuing business, and many families place importance on education, pursuing advanced degrees, and achieving success in their careers. Families with sufficient financial resources might fully support their children's education. As a result, more people within that population might receive higher education and achieve success in society. Isn't this a sufficiently simple and plausible explanation?

Something similar could happen in populations with completely different genetic ancestries. For example, among people who migrated from China to Singapore, investment in education and family economic circumstances might also influence their subsequent success.

And education and family environment also affect performance on IQ tests.

I'm not denying that genetic differences exist between populations. Nor am I denying the possibility that those differences affect intelligence.

However, even if a certain population has a higher average IQ, we cannot determine from the average score alone whether that is due to genetic factors, education and family environment, or a combination of both.

You believe there must be a genetic cause. But what evidence demonstrates that?

I wrote this text, and ChatGPT translated it.