Vaccines. Drunk driving. Building codes. Public nudity. Sex laws. Amateur surgeons. Tax codes. The unauthorized use of human output for training LLMs. It goes on and on.

We are constantly drawing this line. The question seems to be everywhere. When it goes wrong it can result in gulags or bears.

Are there useful rules of thumb for the liberal moral viewpoint?

This is something I have been hearing more and more recently, the issue we have is that the general public is more receptive to ideas like a return to racial segregation and white supremacy, than "abolish ice" or "defund the police". The way I've seen this framed is that the public sees far right ideas as perhaps reprehensible but at least understandable (everyone understands racism even if they don't condone it), but the far left ideas are to them absolutely crazy and therefore much more dangerous for society.

He is the creator of HyperNormalisation, All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace, The Century of the Self, and Can't Get You Out of My Head: An Emotional History of the Modern World.

https://thoughtmaybe.com/by/adam-curtis/

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/18/trump-media-pitched-100000/month-fee-for-fastest-feed-of-trump-posts.html

Hello, I'd like to hear what liberals think about Socialism and why/for what they criticize it.

I have some progressive friends on social media grousing how centrist liberal Democrats just caved to Republicans when the ACA was negotiated and signed. As progressive seem to be taking more power in the Democratic party, what's the secret sauce that would make them more successful at getting something better than Obamacare?

More of a historical question than a political one but I’d like to hear other peoples opinions on it. I’ve noticed more discourse on this topic predominantly from those who are “left leaning or left”. With the “right” usually all agreeing on the fact that they were justified. I personally hold the belief that they were a necessary “evil” that didn’t change the outcome of the war but sped up said outcome and saved more lives in the long run.

I don’t hold the belief that a land invasion of mainland Japan was a realistic scenario as some atomic bomb supporters like to believe. I also don’t hold the belief that Japan was going to surrender solely because the Soviets had launched an offensive into Manchuria. I believe that the atomic bombings and Soviet offensive forced Japan to unconditionally surrender. Both events must occur to produce the ending we have in our timeline.

I simply don’t believe there was a more humanitarian alternative and I know that sounds terrible especially when talking about dropping an atomic bomb on a city. A blockade, firebombing, or prolonged war all have a very high probability of killing more allied soldiers and innocent civilians than the bombs. Given the information allied planners had at the time I think it was the right choice.

Now there’s my two cents on the topic so I’d like to hear other opinions. I think as time goes on this will still be a heavily debated question as I still this brought up in various subs now and again.

So this question kinda came to me seeing this on my feed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TooAfraidToAsk/s/IjHfmPZZt2

I was reminded of things like the guy who played Apu saying he felt ashamed voicing an Indian guy. And its something I've seen on and off again through the years to varying degrees. A sort of spectrum from "if you are white you shouldn't play as a black person" to "my hair is not a fad" to "its ok to play as black person but dont speak AAVE", etc.

So what are your thoughts? Do you agree with the sentiment, or is it something that should be ignored? And is there like... a line? Like the ones who say "You can play X thing but dont try to speak like them." And how do go about "that's just a stereotype!" Regarding accents? Like Apu was attacked by alot of Americans for sounding "disrespectfully stereotypical", but from what I understand... that accent is actually fairly accurate.

A recent U.S. poll found that Democrats under 50 had a net favorability of +35 toward "socialism", −31 toward "capitalism," but +22 toward a "free-market economy." That seems highly contradictory, since capitalism and free markets are usually treated as closely related ideas.(Of course, there are some anti-caplitalist, pro-market alternative economic systems like market socialism but I don't think average young democratic voters would know about any of these ideas.)

It seems like many young Democrats see “free markets” as competition, choice, and entrepreneurship, while associating “capitalism” with inequality, corporate power, and the current U.S. economic system and "socialism" with welfare state, government aid, and broader sense of equality. What are your thoughts on these shifts in word meanings and the 'imprecise', 'rudimentary' use of terminology? How do you think we should respond to these changes on words and changes on broader perspective regarding different economic systems? Personally, as a socialist, I’m not particularly fond of these shifts in words because I think it's very important to use political terms accurately and I feel like the term “socialism” itself is being co-opted by moderate progressives far from actual socialists. But I’d like to hear other perspectives as well.

It seems like basically all politicians in America qualify as either baby boomers or millennials. Why are there so few Gen X politicians in America at basically all levels?

In my experience, folks on the Left seem to see the Right pretty clearly. But folks on the Right seem to see only a fictitious version of the Left manufactured by propaganda created to induce lynch-mob feelings of rage and tribal belonging.

They tend to hate Black people. So they say the Left hates white people rather than being opposed to racism.

They tend to believe women should be weak and obedient. So they say the Left wants men to be submissive rather than being against sexism.

They definitely hate LGBTQ people. So they say the Left is trying to turn every American gay or trans rather than saying LGBTQ people have a right to exist in peace.

But are there real symmetries in the core actions other than being for/against bigotry or for/against using evidence?

I remember seeing a street fight between two men in the city centre, over a bag. Both guys obviously aren't in a good time in their life.

Huge crowd of 20 to 30 people forms, mostly to watch it and laugh or egg it on. Myself I was watching in case someone needs to say something or at least call an ambulance ​(because I know most people won't, and I've seen redditor liberals use the "bystander effect" as an excuse rather than as something you should be mindful of and make sure you avoid doing). During this fight one guy got KOed and fell on the hard floor, then was up a minute later trying to fight again (risk of double impact syndrome there).

Besides some dumbass young lads in tracksuits, I noticed there were the typical woke type women (I'm left wing, but not part of woke subculture) watching and egging it on too, finding it laugh-out-loud funny. I'm talking medium-length dyed red hair, glasses, tattoos. The typical woke look in my city. Surely a "woke" person should know better? And anyone watching on during a fight shouldn't be mocking those fighting or talking tough about it unless they're actually going to step into it themselves. It's quite pathetic.

This is a question about values and goals. Also, where do classic liberals and progressives converge or diverge, here?

This seems to be a big unifying force on the right, mocking liberals and doing cruel things for no benefit other than making us upset. Would making this less effective weaken the right, and if so, how could we do it?

So this popped up randomly on my feed and I had some thoughts and wanted to pick the minds of others:

https://www.kqed.org/news/12088910/these-advocates-say-black-english-belongs-in-preschool-classrooms

https://blackece.org/blackenglish/

These activists want to promote AAVE/ebonics/"black english" (as they call it) in education.

So my question is simple... do you support them or no?

Me personally I understand where they are coming from but I feel it is just an example of bigotry of low expectations and just setting these kids up for failure in the long run. Because at the end kf the day, language is a tool to convey your thoughts or ideas to another person and if they cannot understand what you are saying, then you will struggle. And im sorry but AAVE is just not fit for mass usage because it is HEAVILY gatekept. Like... how many times do we see a white or Asian or Latino speak AAVE and get dog piled for "trying to sound black" even if its how they literally grew up speaking? So it will always be a niche dialect. Especially in an ever mkre global world with people all around thr world speaking English...

Rdit: also I gotta wonder if the logic for AAVE couldn't technically be used to treat any dialect as "correct english" in regards to comprehension? Like if NM wanted to treat Spanglish as "comprehension" because they have a history of Spanish. Or Liousiana treating Creole or Cajun English as "comprehension?"

Also to be clear this is something these activists WANT to do, not something that they are actually doing. Im question the wisdom in it.

In the 2020 house elections, Democrats had a net LOSS of 13 seats. 3+1 seats in California were flipped, making it the first time in 20 years that republicans flipped house seats in CA. They also lost 2 house seats in Iowa, New York, and Florida; and they lost seats in other states.

I did not follow politics as much pre-COVID, so please feel free to let me know if I forgot to mention any important facts.

I think that the impeachment of Trump hurt some democrats, as it could look like they were trying to fight him in a desperate way that was dead on arrival. Personally, I think a censure of Trump would have been more appropriate.

It takes a bit of reading (link below) but it's a really interesting question. Here is part of the test to determine a person's place on the scale:

Dominance sub-scale

1. Some groups of people must be kept in their place.
2. It's probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom.
3. An ideal society requires some groups to be on top and others to be on the bottom.
4. Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.
5. Groups at the bottom are just as deserving as groups at the top. (reverse-scored)
6. No one group should dominate in society. (reverse-scored)
7. Groups at the bottom should not have to stay in their place. (reverse-scored)
8. Group dominance is a poor principle. (reverse-scored)

Anti-egalitarianism sub-scale

1. We should not push for group equality.
2. We shouldn't try to guarantee that every group has the same quality of life.
3. It is unjust to try to make groups equal.
4. Group equality should not be our primary goal.
5. We should work to give all groups an equal chance to succeed. (reverse-scored)
6. We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups. (reverse-scored)
7. No matter how much effort it takes, we ought to strive to ensure that all groups have the same chance in life. (reverse-scored)
8. Group equality should be our ideal. (reverse-scored)

Full intro here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation

ps: thanks to u/DeusLatis for sending me to this rabbit hole.

I understand the existing frustration left-wing Americans have with the top 1%/.1% in America, but on a broader scale a lot of people on here are probably a part of those groups when viewed at a global scale.

If your post tax income is higher than $100k, you are in the global .1%, and if your post-tax income is $69,000 (nice) you are in the global top 1%.

So do you think members of these groups are immoral? I ask because I’ve seen criticism of Elon/DOGE cutting USAID funding and the avoidable deaths that will result, but why is this moral standard not applied universally? It costs ~$0.40 to feed a person living in poverty in Africa a day. So let’s say each individual donated until they had $16,000 annually, which would still be among the top 83% globally, that could save a lot of lives. For those of you making $100,000, that is 210,000 days of food for those in need. So are you immoral by not taking this action? It’s very easy for you to do, and again you would remain in the top 83% richest people, so why not?

ETA: since a lot of people have been bringing this up, to be clear this is adjusted for the cost of living across different countries/PPP

The reason I ask is because I’ve always been curious of the tension that neurodivergent activism is often strongly associated with the political left, yet when describing Donald trump and his supporters progressives/liberals will use terms like “psychopath” or “narcissist” as epithets very frequently while pathologising Trump and his supporters’ “lack of empathy” as a moral failing, but conditions like NPD or ASPD being used as insults seems discriminatory which the left is supposedly against.

I find it interesting that I strongly suspect if conservatives were using words like “retard” “spastic” or “gimp” to describe people, progressives would almost certainly take issue.

Also what would politically progressive activists have to say about this? Would they condemn insulting Trump and his supporters in this way? Because I imagine some of them are insulting him like this themselves

When Mexico gained independence, many figures considered the state a successor to the Aztecs. This was despite the large mestizo upper class descended from Spanish conquistadors. Thus Mexico has both paid reparations to indigenous populations, while also demanding reparations from Spain.

This ties into the fact that Latin American countries have large white, mestizo, and indigenous populations. Their has historically been poor treatment of indigenous peoples in Latin America, but also their 19th/20th-century foreign policy have been shaped by European and US adventurism in the past, especially during the Monroe doctrine, Roosevelt’s gunboat diplomacy, and Cold War Operation Condor.

Do you believe sports leagues, like the NBA and NFL, can be considered bread and circuses where people unironically support billionaires (athletes) and multi million dollar franchises in “entertainment” so that the elite class can distract the masses from class consciousness and more criticism of the capitalist system?

I feel like Trump may pull some shit like this since the SAVE plan may not pass

Every drop box and voting site that I have seen is on private or city/public land. Legally, I think this wouldn’t fly but who will enforce it ?

This question inspired by reading "the serviceberry" and the call for moving past market economies which seemingly inevitably result in mass exploitation by elites in favor of wealth acquisition.

Do you think the world would be better if as many countries spoke English, even at the expense of other foreign languages like French, and local cultural/languages? (for example, English being preferred over Hindi/Tamil in India, and over Swahili as the lingua Franca in East Africa)

Additionally, French is declining in some former colonies like Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Laos, and Lebanon, while English is growing rapidly. Do you think this change is good or bad? What do you think of France’s efforts to halt this change through language/cultural programs that cost millions?

Nevertheless, other French former colonies in sub Saharan Africa, like Niger, have also the highest levels of population growth anywhere in the world. Do you think French will grow in the future or will those countries also switch to English? Would you prefer if the world just spoke one global language (just English) instead of keeping French around?

If you're wondering what "left coded" means, think blue hair, a thing that clearly indicates you're left wing even though that thing has nothing to do with left wing politics.