the west believe in liberalism and the idea that people essentially have free choice so long as that free choice doesnt harm anybody, banning face coverings or "burqa bans" for any reason outside of security or identity verification goes against basic freedom of clothing.

Some people try to argue that "well its not really their choice they were told to do it growing up, and indoctrinated into wanting to do it" this links to a philosophical idea like determinism, and is illogical, because this applies to any "free choice" somebody makes, including clothing or their haircut or something, this doesnt negate that the person hasnt chosen to make their choice regardless of its origins.

I believe that all the violence and property destruction is doing nothing but risking further support of the far right. I also think that destroying small businesses and burning down historical buildings (Hotel de Ville) will do nothing but add additional costs and are nothing but counterproductive. Overall I find this tactics undermine the cause they are supposedly protesting for.

I'm going to talk specifically about the Hong Kong protests in 2019. Which drew anywhere from 1-2 million protesters in one place at their peak.

The Hong Kongers in my opinion were facing a much more serious and dire situation than what is currently happening in France with civil liberties at risk, extradition to china, and legitimate concerns of police brutality (7/21 & 8/31 incident).

Although there were protesters in HK that took things to far, the scale of destruction seems nowhere near what I've seen from the videos in France. I do acknowledge the sieges of PolyU and CUHK, and vandalization of "pro-bejieng camp property" as moments of extensive property damage and in some cases violence. However the confrontations occurred during escalating clashes with the HKPF, whose use of force has heavily criticized.

What makes whats happening in France excusable to so many people? I genuinely don't understand because all I have seen online is people saying how the destruction of cars, shops, monuments is a necessary and acceptable cost that can't be managed, yet in Hong Kong the protests were generally peaceful despite them facing much more serious threats to personal liberties

I'm not trying to say that all protests must be strictly peaceful, but what are the current circumstance that justifies the use of violence to such an extent? I find it hypocritical that the actions in Hong Kong are seen as extreme by some of the protesters while in France its seen as something that can't be controlled and a necessary step to progress.

I understand that the situations are different and there is a level of nuance that must be applied so I'm open to seeing why in France this seems to be such a common theme of protests.

Initial disclosure: First, I am American and may have a different point-of-view than the English. Second, I am assuming, perhaps counterfactually, that the people described herein are arguing in good faith.

I have seen several rounds of debate about whether various immigrants to the UK and their descendants are "English". For example, Konstantin Kisin claimed that Rishi Sunak is not "English" because Sunak is Indian (his exact quote was "a brown-skinned Hindu"). Sunak responded that he is "English" because he grew up in England and identifies with the country.

Putting aside what Kisin was trying to get at, these positions can both be correct. "English" can describe a person from a particular ethnicity that originates from what we now call England. "English" can also refer to someone who is from the country of England and primarily identifies with that country before or at least equal with any other.

People arguing that Sunak cannot be English are using the first, ethnic definition of the word "English" above. People arguing he is English are using the second, civic definition of the word "English".

When people debate this, they are coming in with their pre-defined use of the word "English" and they are not agreeing on their definition before discussing. They therefore cannot agree on an answer. Without specifying how they are using the term "English" debaters are talking past each other and cannot have any productive discussion of whether a certain person is "English".

I'm an og Pokeman, I was there when it originally came out. Even have an original holographic Charizard from almost 30 years ago. Played almost all the games and all of that lovely stuff.

However, the craze in the last few years of people investing in and even scalping Pokemon cards, many even blowing thousands and putting themselves in unimaginable debt is financial lunacy and falling for a get rich quick scheme.

Investing in Pokemon cards over a productive stock portfolio is an objectively bad financial strategy and just glorified gambling.

It's one thing to have card collecting as a side investment if you have the disposable income after investing in stocks to do that, everyone on the planet has those. It's a whole nother thing to make your entire financial strategy spending thousands on collecting Pokemon cards.

There are countless cases of people spending tens of thousands of dollars on Pokemon cards, and the net value is only $5K, means they lost thousands. Not even getting started with Pokemon scalping and the levels in which people go to engage in scalping is simply preposterous.

Really need my view changed, because the amount people spend is financially insane.

If you believe Lindsay deserves leniency for mental illness, you can't dismiss Elizabeth Holmes mental state outright.

I saw "You Can See Everything ", and right after watching it, I was under the impression that she was being more genuine than she actually was. A lot of people have claimed she's a psychopath or sociopath, and I've seen a lot of genuine hate towards her. Holmes never killed anyone and went to jail for defrauding investors, never the patients.

Postpartum psychosis isn't something that Lindsay Clancy would be in control of, and if you believe Elizabeth Holmes is a psychopath, a sociopath, or another diagnosis, you have to acknowledge that's something that she didn't ask for. And if she really is a psychopath or sociopath, nothing in the documentary suggests anyone around her is trying to help with that. She accused her ex, Sunny Balwani, of manipulating her, and her husband,who has power of attorney over her, comes across in the film as similarly controlling.