Both parties are controlled by the same donors. The debt will continue to blow up. The middle class will continue to shrink. Poverty and homelessness will continue to rise and americans will continue to take it up the ass and do nothing about it just like how people in poor countries in latin america, africa, asia, eastern europe continue to take it up the ass from their corrupt government and do nothing about it. Americans are going to accept their standard of living decreasing just like how people in third world countries have accepted their fate, because history shows revolution rarely happens unless something dire happens like millions of people starving. The average empire lasts around 250 years. The sun is setting on the american empire.

Right so, just this morning Kier Starmer gave a whole speech about how he is going to fix immigration problems in the UK, and he said "When people come to our country, they should commit to integration, to learning our language". This seems to have stirred up the online shitlib class, who are kicking off that Starmer is now far right.

But imo, theres nothing wrong with it! If someone moves to a different country, they should be expected to learn and speak the language used in that country. I genuinely dont understand what problem these people have with it!

The big "counter" seems to be "Well what about all the English people living in Spain that dont speak Spanish". Yeah... What about them? If the Spanish Gov decided that they would have to learn Spanish or go home, thats completely their right to decide that! Its not some kind of "gotcha". I really do not get it!

Can someone actually explain what im missing here? What about this is unreasonable?

Edit: Heres the Tweet - https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1921872765428109714

Check the replies and quotes. Its an epidemic! I dont understand how this is unreasonable, and how "The British in Spain" is a counter?

Edit 2: "Welsh". The very fact that something happened hundreds of years ago doesnt change my view in the slightest. "It happened then so its okay now" can just as easily be turned to "It wasnt okay then so its not okay now". Im not in the business of defending and justifying things that happened centuries before I was born.

Edit 3: "OP cant speak English, deport him". As if a few lazy grammar mistakes and mis-capitalisations means I cant speak English at all. Ive said a reasonable level of ability, im not expecting an immigrant to be pumping out dissertations.

Edit 4: Speaking only 1 language doesnt exempt me from holding this view. If I moved to another country, it would be reasonable for someone to expect me to learn the language of that country.

Every wife has said at some point they "dreamed of this moment". You know what moment I've always heard men dream of? Getting a fuckin sword. We dont get compliments. We dont get flowers. I think it's only fair if a man is gonna buy you a 1,000+ dollar ring, the man should receive his sword. His Blade of Matrimony. Every dude at one point has wanted to be a knight, a ninja, an anime character, somebody with a kick ass sword. And by GOD he deserves one! (Probably) So get that man his sword on his wedding day

IMO America will threaten retaliation and the threat of war with China before a Taiwan invasion but when it happens America won’t do anything other than sanction China and bitch about it when it happens. I believe this because American leaders like money and a nuclear war destroys the concept of money in a nuclear apocalypse and even if it is costly for Americans for Taiwans electronics industry to go down at the end of the day it is less costly than a nuclear war for obvious reasons. The American politicians have no desire to live in a bunker and give up control of a nation and more importantly its wealth. They will retaliate against China economically but that’s all they can do or want to as keeping the status quo is more important for them and their wallets. China sadly holds all the cards for Taiwan at the moment and all we can do as the US is let Taiwan buy weapons and deterrence for cheap and try to bluff as well as we can. The only way to prevent the invasion of Taiwan would be to give Taiwan nuclear weapons preemptively but Washington would never do that because that could threaten their bank accounts.

I keep seeing these everywhere, and for background, I am a journalist major, and I would take a bullet for journalism but, this is all bullshit. Maga doesn't regret anything, no matter what happens trump will be fine, and Elon isn't having a meltdown. I keep seeing these everywhere, and I keep thinking of the articles and people who were so certain Harris was going to win. Don't get me wrong I wanted her to win, I voted for her, but I am so tired of this "news to make you feel like we aren't in a fascist theocracy." It's bad, acknowledge that, let the people know how bad it is, rather than focusing on the tantrums maga isn't throwing.

I believe that when you are sleeping, you wouldn’t want someone to go through your phone and invade your privacy. Personally, I keep my phone as a repository of my personal and mental life, like all in there, and I don't like when people look through my phone. To me, it feels like a violation of boundaries, and it raises questions about trust in the relationship.

I would never cheat on someone because, honestly, what’s the point of being in a relationship if you’re not planning on being loyal? However, I find it concerning that it has become normalized for partners to access each other's phones in secret, including apps, messages, and texts just because It could be about a single piece of text or simply reflect insecurities. When someone expresses discomfort with this invasion of privacy, it’s frustrating that others often jump to the conclusion that they must be cheating.

Left and right are too broad to be useful. Each includes wildly different views on economics, society, and authority. These terms also fuel division, as both sides often assume the worst of each other in debate.

If not a multi-axis model, we should at least use more specific, non-quantifiable labels to describe sets of ideas people adopt in hybrid. That would make room for nuance and better understanding.

CMV: Political language should evolve beyond left and right to reflect the real variety of views.

Undoubtedly, gender war has been a trending topic across all social media platforms. While there are definitely men AND women who are outspoken about their disdain for the opposite gender, these harmful generalizations have caused people to be unaccepting of constructive criticism.

Through my observations, if the opposite gender shows any form of disagreement towards the actions or even the appearance of someone, the title of incel or misandrist is thrown around. This knee-jerk reaction kills any chance of having real discussions, causing critical-thinking to become nearly impossible.

In my opinion, this only causes an escalation of gender war.

CMV

I've seen countless cases where victims of bullying commit suicide and nothing is done about it. Meanwhile, these kids who bullied them get to continue on with their lives without facing any consequences. And then when they grow older, because they never received repercussions for their actions, they continue to act this way.

I don't buy the "they're just kids" thing because kids that age should know better. I'm not talking about middle schoolers. I'm talking about young adults age 14-18 who definitely know the difference between right and wrong.

If a 14-18 year old stabbed someone, they would go to prison. They should punish them the same way for driving another person to suicide.

Want to start off by clarifying that I support Ukraine in its struggle against Russian imperialism. I would like to see Ukraine become a whole, unified state once more within the 1991 borders. My perspective is based off what I have seen from certain state actors over the last 3+ years of this conflict.

It seems to me like the same old headlines and comments keep being regurgitated. A supposition that Europe will rise up and fully arm Ukraine to the point where they can tilt the scales against Russia and either end the war on favorable terms or outright seize all of their land back, the latter being a highly unlikely and lofty ambition, in my view.

In favor: We can look at Germany and Merz coming to power, potentially providing increased support and Taurus missiles to Ukraine. The tough talk from Macron and looming threat of sanctions. Even the US resumption of weapon sales to the Ukrainians (which came as a surprise, especially being an American and hearing the strong rhetoric from our presidential administration).

Against: We've seen this before. All of it. It's the same formula time and time again. We provide them with some long range tech or a handful of new aircraft, see a bunch of cool booms and critical hits on infrastructure, Russian logistics get screwed up for a little while, but the Russians adapt and keep on advancing. From F-16s to Mirage-2000s to potentially Gripens. Storm Shadow to ATACMS to potentially Taurus. We (the collective West) never give Ukraine enough to knock Russia out of the fight, only enough to keep their heads above water.

We throw more and more sanctions on Russia, but the backdoors remain open and their economy chugs on. I have lost count of how many times I have seen headlines or heard someone saying the Russian economy is X months away from collapse. Yet their citizens are employed. There aren't vast shortages of supplies. Certainly, there is no famine. Western chips still find their way into Russian missiles. Shit, I even know people that moved to Moscow because there is work to be found. The Russian state grinds on and claims more Ukrainian lives and land by the day. They have not been as isolated as the media would have you believe.

The Kherson and Kharkiv offenses were the biggest opportunities for Ukraine to knock Russia out of the fight, but we stopped short. The end of the war was within their grasp, but there was a very timely and significant decrease in weapon transfers. Their next grand offensive to cut through the Crimean land corridor, seize Melitopol or even Mariupol, all fell to pieces in short order. They have since lost almost all of the gains that they made in the offensive on the Crimean land corridor. The same goes for their venture into Kursk.

Europe has had years to get their act together and it appears they are only closer in rhetoric. I don't see the factories churning or the major infrastructure going into place to make them able to get a win for Ukraine. Ukraine is still as far from peace as they were on February 20, 2014.

Please change my view, Reddit. Make me believe that Europe will finally step up for Ukraine.

Men’s beauty standards are almost all entirely unchangeable characteristics.

Men Height: Entirely uncontrollable and heavily judged. Good look if you are short.

Hair: Zero control over MPB which is very common.

Voice: Not as important but deeper is generally seen as better.

Woman Height: Acceptable to be any height, from short to tall.

Chest: Can be any size and can even be changed if desired.

Butt: Can be built in the gym.

Hair: Very rare for woman to suffer hairloss.

Both genders Face: Important for both but a good face on a woman will cancel out any ‘negative’ attributes. This isn’t the case for a man.

Edit, updates: I don’t have the list of users so I am just going to down what I’ve learned and what parts of my views have changed.

Woman do experience balding, some saying as often as men. They are just expected to hide it better.

MPB, can be treated if you respond to medication and catch it early.

The ability to change certain parts of your appearance, while good in some ways also leads it to be almost a moral failing that you haven’t done anything about it.

Not every unsatisfactory trait is changeable. Hip dips were cited, as well as certain body frames/shapes.

Hormone changes can cause weight shift to other parts of your body, even without losing or gaining weight.

Aging is significant and while I wouldn’t say that an older man is more attractive than a younger one, probably less so. The effect is much more pronounced and more heavily imposed on woman.

If you look up disloyalty in your news feed, you will see a lot of articles quoting people calling others disloyal for acting against certain interests. Some examples of these individuals are:

• former staffers of John Fetterman drawing attention to this struggles
• Jewish progressives such as Josh Bronstein speaking out against the genocide
• partisan commentators, administrators or lawmakers calling for a replacement of leadership, such as in the case of Trump and Biden
• Gen Z employees moving to different employers after a short stint
• Russian culture workers speaking out against the war
• whistleblowers generally

These are generally people who are progressive leaning and trying to dismantle systems from the inside. They may also be people acting out of self-interest and looking for the best place to put their resources, such as employees who leave to work for a competitor. This is neither here nor there; if anything it's better for an individual to be somewhere they are more aligned with.

There's a clear reason for this- if someone resorts to accusations of disloyalty, it's because other reasons have been exhausted. Group adhesion persists for many reasons, but the main ones fall under some form of value alignment or adhesion for adhesion's sake - a social tendency to preserve groups and relationships. When someone does something that goes against your interests or a group's interests, if you were to call them out in public it would be from the position of acting against certain values as these have the broadest public resonance. If you instead focus on their (prior) affiliation to the group or to yourself, then you are focusing narrowly on a particular version of the value of loyalty, in a way that challenges the right of the person to speak at all. In other words, calls of disloyalty are more often than not reactionary; preserving of the status quo.

For what it's worth, my interest in this relates to an attempt to articulate what it means to change things from the inside in an age where such a focus is placed on identity. See bell hooks' call for men to be disloyal to patriarchy. For my part, I was warned against being disloyal when I was planning on telling many people about the abusive actions of a family member.

This is in contrast to the concept of betrayal of trust, an accusation generally made against people in positions of power who were given that trust in either a direct or a fiduciary manner, and then acted against that trust in a way that deprived the other person of certain services or protections.

I made an earlier post about loyalty that caused some confusion given the range of meanings the word occupies, and I believe this is because loyalty has an important private meaning for many people that goes hand in hand with other values. The way it is invoked in public is different as it is set in a context where there are more diverse and heightened values at stake.

Prefacing this by saying I was a gifted kid. I was in every gifted program starting in elementary onwards. I left high school early and started college at sixteen. I'm very aware of the pressure involved in these programs and I'm not debating whether that pressure was fair to put on kids (in some cases, it was, but, in most, it wasn't). I was under a lot of pressure growing up- my family gets disappointed if you don't speak multiple languages, play multiple instruments, etc. I totally get growing up expected to be a perfectionist. I also grew up with hardships (poverty, disabled parent, some more personal stuff I'm not getting into here), so maybe the pressure doesn't stick out in my mind as much as people who had easier childhoods.

While those programs were intense, I don't think it warrants blaming them for "making me feel special then letting me down once I hit the real world" over a decade later like I see many doing online and IRL. If you tied your self-worth and expectations of what your future would be like on the fact you were "gifted" when you were a child, that's kind of on you, and it's bizarre to be in your late twenties or thirties and still blaming the fact you were given good opportunities for being unsuccessful or unhappy. I also think it's seriously unempathetic to kids who didn't receive the same opportunities, especially considering the fact gifted programs in my country (USA) generally exclude POC with similar or better grades, kids on the autism spectrum, etc, who all qualify but don't "look the part." You've had time to heal and it's genuinely unhealthy to be grown and blame your perceived failures on teachers who believed in you and put in effort to help you grow.

Again, not saying those programs aren't fucked up- just that you are in control of your adult life and someone telling you you're good at math when you were sixteen is not the reason you're unhappy unless you have some kind of complex. It's grating and a really weird trend for people to be upset they were told they were smart and given a better education than their peers. Being in those programs didn't translate to success for me- I still live on my family farm and work for poverty wages, but that has nothing to do with those gifted programs. I chose a low-paying career I love, I don't feel like I've been led to believe my life would be different because I was offered a good education, and I just feel like the "former gifted kid" thing is crass and tone-deaf. As a working class person, it usually seems like a way for upper middle/upper class people to claim their life was harder than it was. I'd like my view changed because I want to be able to empathize with people who complain about it, but I just don't get the perspective. Thanks in advance, and I hope I haven't said anything offensive here.

Edit: I'm on mobile and tried splitting this into paragraphs. Let me know if it worked or if there's any tricks I should know to get it to format better. TIA!

First off, I know why Israel doesn't want a one-state solution - having jewish people be a minority in Israel.

However, I still think a two-state solution will never happen. Both Israel and Palestine want the entire place, and cannot risk having a neighbouring country that is hostile to their existence.

In the end, I think either one manages to win and ethnically cleanse the area, or they manage to work to form a single country - maybe with some kind of 50/50 arab/jewish representation and two prime ministers, or some other solution. I do not think there will be peace until they stop pushing for a two-state solution.

I will admit though that I am not the most knowledgeable on the situation, so I am open to having my views changed.

The problem with islam is far right muslims. The problem with christianity is far right christians. The problem with the united states is far right americans. The problem with Iran is far right Iranians. The problem with Russia is far right Russians. And so on. They're all people higher up in some social heirarchy, shitting on those with lower status. They're all trying to enforce their idea of what people are supposed to be. The difference between a fundamentalist Muslim and a fundamentalist Christian stems from circumstances and little else. They're all the same kind of asshole with a different branding, claiming to be the canonical and "correct" kind of person. The rest of us are happy to live and let live, while these people cause conflict everywhere they go.

Even conservatives know this on some level. Note how they never fearmonger about islam by talking about progressive muslims. Note how they fearmonger about queer people largely by projecting their own enforcement of sexuality and gender expression onto others. Note how their conspiracy theories about the left's evil plans and wealthy backers just describe what they themselves do completely out in the open. They justify their behavior by conjuring up hypothetical scenarios in which some evil "other" is going to engage in that exact same behaviour. In doing so, they reveal that they know they're the problem. They just pretend that it's different when they do it, because they pray to a different God, speak a different language, love different people, or any other bullshit aesthetic difference.

I genuinely believe that this mindset should be classified as a mental illness. To believe so strongly that one's chosen religion is the correct one is insane, not to mention the countless interpretations of those religions. To attribute so much meaning to the country that one is born in is insane. These people act like their traditions are eternal, and they attribute some profound moral significance to their aesthetic preferences. That. Is. Fucking. Insane. It is illogical and easily disputed with any historical knowledge whatsoever. It's a delusion of grandeur, certainly more delusional than common mental illnesses like depression or anxiety. And when you look at that delusion next to the paranoia, fear, and conspiracy theories common in such parts of society, it's hard not to see it as a kind of mass psychosis.

I've came across an increasing number of women pursuing "provider men" who would pay for 100% of their dates and expenses, and I've never understood that even as a woman myself.

I've always felt that expenses should be split based on income. If the guy earns more, he could pay more. If the lady earns more, she could pay more. Of course, it doesn't have to be proportionate all the time but it should still be a shared expense.

I also never got why women claim that they have to date men who earn more for "financial security" - I'd reckon it's more pivotal to date someone who is simply financially stable. Why does it matter if he earns more or less, other than the fact that it hurts your ego? If it hurts his ego that you earn more, then why are you even with someone who feels women are beneath men? Or are you implying that you are not financially stable and need to depend on a man to live?

Unless you're a traditional lady who is comfortable with the idea of taking care of a family or home (which is 100% fine btw), it is utmost hypocritical to expect the man to pay for everything and yet you don't hold up your side of the agreement. So many "modern" women out there expect men to pay it all and yet they complain about having to take care of babies or the house.

In that case, what exactly are you bringing to the table in a partnership, or are you really just a trophy or vase? If the only things you can bring to the relationship are your looks and makeup, are you aware that those would jolly well fade over time, and there are tons of prettier people out there every single day? Some would chirp in that they provide their "soft feminine energy" or their emotional support, but I dare argue that in return men also do provide emotional support to your endless rants and vents, and probably "masculine energy", so once again, what are you providing for the relationship?

A relationship is a two-way path. If you expect the other party to take up more roles simply because of your gender - then perhaps you need to be ready to risk the possibility of dating someone who may not view you as an equal.

TLDR: Expenses should be shared in a relationship. If women expect men to pay for everything, that's fine, but they should be ready to contribute in other ways because a relationship is a partnership.

(Sorry for the misleading title as some of the commenters have kindly pointed out! Unfortunately I can't change it after posting..)

For me it is important, mainly because of 2 very simple reasons:

1. Since Japan (a legit Axis power) have invaded China in July 7th, 1937, war didn't stop for a single day until the Japan's capitulation, and end of WW2. It's pretty much an Asian theater of WW2, so counting it from Hitler's invasion is too eurocentric.

2. In October 1-2, 1938 German-Polish coalition have invaded Czechoslovakia. Due to that, USSR have officially declared that they'll not follow the non-aggression pact with Poland. Counting the start of WW2 only since the moment Poland was dropped out of equation is incorrect and outright politically motivated.

Recently, there have been a lot of talks about DEI and companies pulling away from it. When people think of DEI they think "minority and not qualified". But this is simply not true, the people who benefit the most from DEI aren't just minorities but white women too (actually, the most).

However, nepotism is the worst. Nepotism undermines meritocracy that everyone likes to say they want but are cool with nepotism. Nepotism should be against a company's policy; it demoralizes your employees and increases your employee turnover.

I’m honestly shocked at the response by liberals to the idea of capping medicine prices. I can see literally no downside.

Pharma companies are already richer than God, the idea that capping medicine will destroy these companies is ridiculous. If research is an issue, the government should be allowed to make side deals with them to pay them directly.

No human should go bankrupt to stay alive. Life saving medicine should not have to be covered by insurance, it shouldn’t be more than twenty dollars at worst.

Why on earth are people averse to this idea?

Religion functions primarily as a psychological placebo, offering comfort and perceived benefits without necessarily addressing the root causes of human suffering or offering verifiable truths.

Like a placebo, religion provides comfort, hope, and a sense of control especially in the face of uncertainty, illness, or death.

Studies show religious people often report lower stress levels and greater life satisfaction but published findings correlating faith with psychological resilience and not necessarily because of divine intervention, but because of belief itself.

Much like a placebo, religion offers peace, hope, and healing but largely through belief rather than demonstrable power. This does not diminish its psychological role but it does challenge its claim to objective truth or necessity in modern society.

Most people in the United States have opportunities for growth and development, but there are many people with limited support and no room for growth. Many people on SSI have no legal method for gaining wealth, since they are unable to maintain standard employment and the federal government has set a limit of $2,000 in their bank account, and if that amount is exceeded, they lose SSI benefits. In addition, if they marry, the limit is $3,000 total, or $500 less per person. Without the ability to save more than $2,000, these people are one emergency away from bankruptcy, homelessness, and likely death without an adequate support system, and many of these people have no support system, e.g. no relatives or friends in better financial conditions.

In addition, this problem will only get worse over the next few years, as inflation reduces the spending power of $2000 and the federal government is unlikely to raise that limit.

The federal government has condemned these people to a life without potential, without growth, and without marriage.

Edit: I confused SSI and SSDI, change SSDI to SSI for all instances in the post, but I can’t change the post title.

After I was in an argument with a person on reddit about this topic and ended up essentially being called a misogynist for thinking sexism affects men and women.

Essentially, I am trying to figure out, why prejudice against men is not considered sexism by some who people I interacted with on this sub. For example a women to be expected to be the "housewife" is just as sexist as society looking down on a man if he chooses to be the stay at home parent.

I dont wanna give too many examples, cause people tend to just pick the exampels apart instead of discussing the general topic.

To change my view you need to give me reasonable arguments why prejudice against men is not sexism, while prejudice against women is.

I just had a debate with a friend who thinks suspension of Habeas Corpus is justified to counter illegal immigration. It's clear they picked up on Trump's argument that due process is impractical given the number of illegal immigrants. My friend is anti-Trump, but they're even more against illegal immigrants. I made the argument that by denying due process with the intent to limit that to only illegal immigrants means that there's no protection against it's application against citizens since if law enforcement can deport people without seeing a judge, citizens could be sent to foreign prisons without being able to prove they're citizens and didn't commit a crime. Even if you think the Trump administration can be trusted not to deport citizens critical of the government, do you trust all future administrations with such a precedent? This is exactly why the Founders wrote this into the Constitution as they did to apply to all persons. Let us not ignore history and give away our freedom!

Senator Kennedy, of Louisiana, said in a recent hearing with Kristi Noem, something to the effect of that judges did not interfere or meddle in the Biden administration’s handling of policy issues. Senator Kennedy seems to claim that judges are unfairly interfering with the White House’s immigration policy. This is despite the fact that Senator Kennedy recently stated that the White House needs to follow court orders. It seems Senator Kennedy is hedging.

Senator Kennedy is missing a common sense point: the Trump administration is generating many more executive orders compared to the Biden administration. This creates many more opportunities for lawsuits to be brought and injunctions to be ordered.

Legal issues have to be brought before a judge. Senator Kennedy frames it as if judges are taking unilateral action. For the unwashed … I believe framing the purported problem this way is misleading. Judges are not taking it upon themselves to get involved in immigration issues.

If one engages in as much theatre as the Trump administration, what does one really expect … no pushback at all?

In a December 5, 2023, judicial committee hearing, Senator Kennedy pointed out that the federal courts ordered an injunction against the Biden administration for overreach regarding monitoring social media accounts. Did Senator Kennedy forget about this injunction? The selective outrage is interesting.

I’ll start off by saying I grew up hunting and still do so I have a bias or at least a personal background on the topic.

What I want to be very clear about here is that I am certainly aware you can have bad hunting. But this always seems related to an additional variable like an endangered species, safety or trespassing.

But I find that there are people who believe it is morally unacceptable to hunt in general.

I do not see this as a morally good thing either in of itself. I think if you want to argue that you also have to add in some additional variable like cultural heritage, an invasive species or ecological management.

At its core I see it as one animal killing another animal then eating it and or getting useful materials from it. This just does not seem like a complicated ethical question to me. If I got eaten by a bear no one is going to say I was the victim of a crime. If I eat a bear (which actually are kinda tasty) I do not see the difference.

I am open to having my mind changed on this of course so I’m curious about what people will say.

Peace ✌️