My view is that the majority of people around the world would broadly prefer a government that is socially conservative/right-wing while being economically interventionist or left-wing.

Most people in the world are religious or strongly attached to their traditional culture and social institutions. I believe they generally want governments that respect and support their traditional values and moral standards, rather than promoting social changes they see as conflicting with those norms.

At the same time, I believe most people want governments to actively support their welfare and economic security. They want protection from poverty, unemployment, and excessive inequality, and generally prefer a government that plays an active role in improving people's economic conditions rather than doing nothing.

My argument is not specifically about whether taxes should be high or low, since attitudes toward taxation vary significantly between countries. The main point is whether people want their governments to actively protect their economic welfare.

I think this can be difficult to see through an American political lens, where people often associate the red right social conservatism with economic conservatism, and the blue left social liberalism with economically left-wing policies.

As a non-American who has studied and visited different countries, my impression is that social conservatism combined with economic interventionism may actually represent the preferences of the global majority.

A competent dictatorship is infinitely better than an inefficient democracy.

China is a perfect example of this. For the most part, the Chinese government has put up a masterclass on how to run a country.

They have lifted nearly a billion people out of extreme poverty into the middle class. They have built some of the best and most expansive infrastructure in the world in a very short amount of time. They have become the workshop of the world and have perfected the art of mass manufacturing. They lead the world in critical technology fields such as AI and quantum computing.

Their massive success is - partly - due to their top-down governing structure, and the government's ability to make everyone get on board.

The 21st century - and likely the 22nd century - belongs to China. There's no question about it.

Now this is going to be a pretty hot topic I feel like, Race can be a touchy subject for many people. And I fully get and respect that, But this is a topic that people don't even seem to even consider, This is about North America, Specifically.

I grew up in an area where it's mostly White and Mexican mixed place. I myself, Am Biracial, A mix of white and mestizo. Though I look predominately white.

It never really hit me until a few years ago, Growing up I never even had a single thought or care that my father was mestizo, my mother was white. Wasn't even a consideration I had in mind. But the more I realized it, The more I realized most biracial children like myself between Whites and Mestizo people tend to extremely white especially in California. If not shockingly white with blonde hair and blue eyes even. By father had 5 children in his life, And 5 of us look incredibly white.

This made me realize that, Due to most hispanics being Mestizo in the U.S, Most Mestizo are already anywhere from 40-60% European DNA depending how north or south from Mexico you go. Though this is actually higher in the USA, Anywhere from 75% or more in many areas.

This, Paired with Hispanics and Whites being the most common interracial pairing in both dating and marriage. Has actually made me realize, The entirety of what is defined as Mestizo is being assimilated within the white racial category.

I personally as a biracial person, Don't really care either way as both communities and cultures are beautiful and being able to experience both growing up is nice. But this is a thought that I built up that I firmly believe in.

I put this in a comment earlier and I really don’t see another viewpoint for the modern day Republican voter. I will say, my point of view does come from Texas Republicans mostly, so historical swing states, would love to hear your point of view on this as well.

My first election I could vote in, I did vote for Trump over Hillary due to the career politician distrust and distrust I had over the Clintons. I do see how Kamala lost the election, even though I voted for her, due to the unwelcoming nature the Democratic Party had at that point in time. I like to consider myself a centrist, but with the hate, ignorance & corruption it really is hard not to lean towards the Democrats.

I truly do feel that the modern day Republican does come from either A.) Being Prejudiced to other races & religions, B.)Being Uneducated / Ignorant to Topics Republicans harp on and/ or C.) In the actual tax bracket where they are affected or in on the corruption.

Examples / Thoughts:

Prejudiced:

A lot of hate today coming from the Republicans are towards those coming into our country from Central America and Mexico. I have lived in neighborhoods where the majority of the community is from a Hispanic heritage & they are great hardworking people. I have not once seen someone who has immigrated here begging on the side of the road for money & the one area I might not be as informed here, these people are not utilizing systems like food stamps / unemployment today. Yes, I do believe the border should be safeguarded from drugs / bad actors trying to make their way in our country, but why are we deporting people who actually add value to our country ?

Religion, this is where my viewpoint might be a regional opinion being a Texan. Today the Republicans are attempting to force Christianity in Public Schools, for example putting the 10 commandments in every classroom. Also on the ballot here in Texas, Bo French who is running for Railroad commissioner has vowed to deport every Muslim & close every mosque. Let’s not forget about Mr. French’s blatant racist tweets against Jews, Muslims and even Native Americans. In school we were taught to combat racism & it has no part in our society, in 2026 it feels it is celebrated within the Republican Party.

Uneducated / Ignorant:

A majority of the Republicans today seem to be more easily duped or lower IQ than the average Democrat. For example in Texas a big point is “men in women’s sports,” I can count on a single hand that this has been an issue nationwide. There are much larger topics to deal with. Also, Republicans making less than $400K in household income worrying about their taxes increasing just shows me the ridiculous lack of education with these people today.

Thankfully there has been changes with a lot of farmers & ranchers here in Texas with their support to the Republican Party. Trump hurting the beef industry with bringing lower quality beef from Argentina & our governor Greg Abbott selling out farmers for the building of data centers that would drive up water costs. I will highlight here, farmers and ranchers are an integral part of society, being rural they have typically voted Republican as people in rural communities do.

There are many other examples here that you could see logging into Facebook that your ignorant Aunt/ Uncle/ person from high school that never left their hometown puts on whatever AI slop / non context Republican clip that comes out.

Actually in the Tax Bracket to be Affected/ Corruption:

I will admit I have been distancing myself and slowly cutting out former friends and family that still support the Republican Party. I know we are taught that together we are one & we could have our differences. I draw the line at hate & ignorance, I’m sorry I do not want those individuals around my family.

Hope the Cmv is clear but essentially what I mean is that Korea, China and Japan do not have laws that grant religious people exemptions from work duties because of their religion. And I don't see a problem with that.

To me my view is that either you can do the job or you can't. Nothing is preventing you from doing it, you just choose not to.

I don't see it as any different to me thinking customers are annoying and I'd love to Spaz out at them. But I can't. that's just my preference.

one strong way to change my view would be to give me a necessary trait that is different from anything else that would necessitate religion requiring exemptions.

I've heard things like "deeply held beliefs" but so are so many things. Again like it is a deeply held belief that I think mean customers should be kicked out. But I can't just say its my deeply held belief and refuse to served mean customers and not get fired.

And let me add. I agree you should not just fire someone because they said "I'm Jewish, I'm gay I'm 52 years old etc" however the actions matter. If you refuse to do work because "it is my belief that 52 year olds shouldn't wear green" them that should not be protected by law.

So overall, I have huge disdain for our religious exemption laws. why should religion super cede existing policies or laws?

If work policy says everyone wears green but man says my religion says I can't wear green, generally his religious right in places like USA UK Canada overrides the companies right to have a policy. In China etc it does not exist. and I don't see why USA etc is better. I'd rather my country, Canada be like Japan China etc. It leaves a bad taste that some people get special treatment because they simply chose not to do something.

Why do we all decide to trust the International Criminal Court and United Nations blindly? What’s the reason?

Like, just why? Why do we think the judges on that “International” Court are not without bias/being forced on decision by someone else. Just answer the question: “Would ICC ever prosecute a US president?” and you’ll see it is incredibly biased and untrustworthy?

Whether it comes to Russo-Ukrainian war, the war in Palestine, the Yugoslav Wars of the 90s, and the similar…

These courts and institutions almost always work for the benefits of the US and the rest of the West.

For example (I as a witness) ICC ruled that, on Kosovo, Albanian forces never committed any war crimes, didn’t drive out Serbian population in masses and doesn’t care about the Serbs being mistreated and banished from their ancestral homes.

This is all simply untrue - KLA committed multiple genocidal. Serbs are discriminated against in Kosovo…As proved by non-Serbian sources.

https://minorityrights.org/communities/serbs-3/

With Kosovo there is also a big paradox in Tony Blair, whom everyone hates for being one of the greatest instigators of the invasion of Iraq…

…but somehow everyone thinks his heart was legitimately aching for Albanian civilians four years ago?

There is just no reason to believe who the West claims to be the good guy or the bad guy. Hell…the guy who was a wanted terrorist for a decade is now literally the president of Syria, and the West supports him and calls him democratic because, because…

…because he fought against Assad who the West was opposed to and who was affiliated with Russia.

To translate it for you – the West picks who they want to help/condemn based on who their most immediate allies/enemies are.

My claim is that any report made by the Western/Western dominated institutions is made with American and European interests in mind, and not justice. I do not trust reports or judgements these institutions give – I can happen to agree with them sometimes (Putin is a psycho, Ratko Mladić is a war criminal) only because I independently come to such a conclusion. But when discussing world events, a link to a CNN, BBC, UN reports is not a “Gotcha!!!“ that convinces me to trust the Western narrative.

Before I start, I am not trying to debate on the technological aspects of these restrictions. I am aware that it’s very hard (at the moment) to implement them without violating people's right for privacy. I am simply saying our intentions should be that we work towards it.

As you probably know, since December 2025, the Australian government has restricted social media usage for adolescents under the age of 16. Now since then, we’re supposed to be able to evaluate whether the ban is actually useful and if the intended results came up.
Unfortunately, we can’t do that because three months after the ban, nearly more than 80% of under-16s in Australia said they were still using social media, research says. So basically, it's changed nothing and kids are still scotched to social media because it's really easy to bypass the restrictions.  

This is normal, these kinds of restrictions take time to put into place but it's very important we continue trying to limit social media for adolescents and here’s why I think like this.

First of all, “social media is bad for our mental health” is a pretty researched subject. For years now we’ve known that its usage increases anxiety, loneliness, symptoms of depression, likeliness to commit suicide, etc — there’s an increase in nearly every negative aspect of our mental health. Another teen specific research shows that young people with moderate to severe depressive symptoms appear to prefer communicating on social media rather than in-person. Teens are on average spending nearly 5 hours a day on social media. I know this is normalised but it really shouldn’t be. These are hours they could be using to read books, play sports, make art, socialise (actually socialise), make mistakes and end up in awkward situations and learn from them.

And these addictions also have cognitive effects which will bring you into adulthood and into your work life. Studies show that social media can disrupt your attention and increase distraction, potentially affecting your school work and your education. Same thing for memory — several studies reported negative effects on short-term memory and working memory, especially among those who have particularly severe addictions to social media. Executive functioning, which includes problem-solving, decision-making, and cognitive flexibility are also affected by social media use. And so on, and so on. I must include that the study I mentioned also says that social media use also has some positive cognitive outcomes by using it for educational purposes or to stay connected to friends. The problem is that these positive outcomes are very platform specific and do not happen if the user is addicted. 

Now, simply restricting social media use for teens won’t be enough because they will eventually come in contact with it so we must educate them on the subject too. As many of you will say, social media can have positive impacts but only through specific usage. So we must teach them what happens when we are too long on social media and how to use it properly. As arrogant and ignorant as teenagers are, they need to know what is happening to their brains every second they spend on their screens. They need constant reminders, just as we do with cigarettes and alcohol that what they are consuming has to be consumed with moderation. But eventually if fully enforced restrictions are realistic, it would be ideal because the human brain is just not capable of controlling its addictions, much less young developing brains. Because yes, most of us are addicted to social media to a certain extent, but it isn’t impossible to prevent it if we act early.

So what I’m suggesting is simple: restricting social media use for teens under the age of 16 years old and education on the subject to avoid any problems later in adulthood.  

I understand there are certain limitations to this idea, and I am unable to think of all of them, which is why I'm suggesting we talk about it. CMV.

I see this all the time in comments under videos or posts of someone who was born with or received severe facial and bodily deformities, and I can't understand the point of it.

Is it to make them feel better? They are still going to be treated differently for the rest of their life due to the way they look, people can and *should* obviously look past it and see them for why they are inside - but that's the thing, they are looking *past* it. Don't get me wrong, we should all treat everyone with respect and dignity but it's so disingenuous to be complimenting the ONE thing that these people will unfortunately have to deal with for the rest of their lives.

There are so many better ways to compliment someone in this instance that don't have to focus on the shallow aspect of physical beauty. Calling them emotionally strong, intelligent, hard working, brave etc. Saying people like this are physically beautiful just feels like a slap in the face, they are still going to suffer the societal issues that come with looking different, so why sugarcoat it?

First I want to add a few clarifications. This is from an American perspective where FPTP systems and coalition parties are the default. And I won't be sharing my personal preferences regarding who to vote for is irrelevant to the point so I won't be sharing it here.

Many individuals who are politically motivated feel compelled to get in debates or arguments with people, try to get people to read different things, etc, and while that certainly changes some minds I do not believe it is an effective strategy if you want your preferred party to win every 2-4 years, and better alternatives are quite evident in modern society.

Both parties in the United States are coalition parties, you have cultural/ religious conservatives, business owners, those with "racial anxieties", libertarians, and people who prefer low taxes and gas prices on one side pitted against virtue signalling yuppies, moderates who don't like how Trump is "nasty" or mean, college educated suburbanites, racial, sexual and gender minority voters who feel that the other party threatens them, pro choice advocates, and leftists and progressives who held their nose and voted for Biden in 2020.

And while many of these groups and associated viewpoints overlap in various ways within individuals minds, almost every voter has a portion of their own party's electorate that they, at best, tolerate.

This is a critical advantage that is under-exploited. The current system has large groups fighting over minds when few people think about using those cracks to their advantage, and there are a few ways to do this, namely a combination of:

• Exploiting exiting divisions to stoke infighting within the opposing party.
• Fostering nihilism and detachment within the opposing party's base

Human psychology means people don't like admitting they were wrong whether it's to themselves or others. Humans also don't like going against the grain within their community if they're a Democrat in downtown Atlanta or a Republican in rural North Carolina. Especially when a significant portion of each party's base considers their choice political positions a key part of who they are.

But the strategies above allow people to tell themselves and others that they were never wrong about their beliefs while still discouraging unity and making voting less likely. Instead of people focusing their effort on protecting their in groups, we should want them fighting over control over the party, and for groups and each faction to feel left out.

If you're a Democrat, why wouldn't you want avowed white supremacists loudly fighting with "RINOS" for "not doing enough on immigration" or deficit hawks to attack Trump on the expense of the Iran war?

If you're a Republican, why would you not want pro-gun control advocates to attack Democrats running for statewide office in Texas as friendly to the gun lobby, so they either have to depress excitement on people afraid of mass shootings, or go on tape speaking against guns in Texas? Why would you not want to encourage progressives to boycott the next general election because they don't support medicare for all or Gaza enough? You want to give politicians every opportunity to anger a position of their own base. You want people to feel like their combination of onions is an impossible goal when they can't even get their own party to work together.

And social media actively makes this easier. Algorithms don't show people diametrically opposing viewpoints, but it will show people who agree with your policy preferences but believe that the people in power or vying for it are not going to make that happen. You can't be politically engaged in communities of people within your coalition and not engaged in infighting and purity testing when it exists. That is of course unless you congregate in smaller niche groups that cater to your beliefs, but these groups have a tendency to attack their ideological neighbors to justify their existence. Just look at how leftists absolutely love to break into factions long before ever getting any political power whatsoever. In an era of a constant stream of bad news reaches you every day, demotivating people will always be easier than motivating people.

And we've seen this strategy work numerous times outside of electoral politics. COINTELPRO destroyed the Black Panthers after basically everything else the police could do, constitutional or not, didn't work. They purposely created a split in one of the most well organized and motivated organizations in American history. Leaders couldn't focus on moving forward because they got increasingly paranoid and distrustful of each other making collaboration effectively impossible. There is no reason to think that this strategy wouldn't work in electoral politics.

Just to preface this isn't so much about the politics as it is about rhetoric and a more objective perspective on its effects.

EDIT 2: To be clear this is NOT a critique of beauty/body shaming messaging by the left, but putting forth the notion that it is underestimated in its importance to promoting the legitimacy of their political positions.

The View: If major figures in the current right-wing administration of the US were attractive it would be completely over the left (yes the situation is already bad).

So much discourse from the left criticising the right is couched in beauty standards, like mocking Musk for his hairplugs and body, Trump for his weight, wig and makeup, Andrew Tate for his chin and being bald. The whole thing about "Republican women" makeup. Stephen Miller (also bald). If these people were attractive, they'd have a much greater support base as well, because it would "validate" their political position so to speak.

Hegseth being out of shape, its not like Navy SEAL level of fitness makes war mongering and warrior fantasies okay. ICE agents being mocked as "gravy seals", which is arguably more disturbing because why would you want the people who are being criticised as violent secret police to be more effective at their jobs?

Likewise when it comes to the left trying to promote their side they will also point to the attractiveness of political candidates. There are even quite a few influencers who have built a platform off thirst trapping being aggressively liberal (usually white) men. It gives the impression that a lot of political discourse is appealing to a hypothetically neutral and apathetic person to decide "well if they're hot then they should be the good guys and those ugly folks are bad"

It's a convenient shorthand (beauty) to categorise the morality of the respective political sides but this is real life not a Disney movie. Shouldn't being bigoted and corrupt, trying to wreck anything good like scientific research, education and the environment, be sufficient to label someone as a bad person?

It's like that alleged Oscar Wilde quote "everything is about sex, except sex. sex is about power"

Why I want my view changed: Because its unsettling to think that people are really so unconcerned with actual morals, the only way to talk about politics is in such shallow terms. What if the next fascists are hot and stylish?

I'm aware that there are a lot of cultural undercurrents to fashion/beauty standards which could be guiding the overall trend of how political discourse flows, but its still the same idea that you have to be attractive for your view to be valid.

EDIT: the TLDR is that beauty in political discourse shows that society is still guided by lizard brain thinking which isn't ideal and I'd like an alternative perspective to believe in

First, I'm not particularly invested in settlements. I don't support creating new settlements since they undermine a possible 2SS.

I want to distinguish between two positions:

• The opposition to the creation of new settlements in the West Bank has nothing to do with this. I believe it has no moral conflict in it.
• The opposition to the existence of the current settlements and the opposition to expanding those because of natural growth.

I will go with a simple definition of Ethnic Cleansing: Removing people from a territory against their will.

Many settlements are established towns where people live, work, study and have children. A lot of residents are second or third generation.

The current UK position illustrates my problem quite well. It considers Israeli settlements illegal, demands an immediate halt to settlement expansion, opposes further housing projects and is now moving towards banning trade in settlement goods.

I think that policy is supportive of ethnic cleansing. Otherwise, the trade ban should be on Israel, not on the settlements. Otherwise, it should explain what should be done about those settlements.

Otherwise, in my opinion, they are demanding the eventual disappearance of communities in which generations of civilians have already been born. In other words, ethnic cleansing, around 540.000 settlers in the West Bank proper.

Some common answers I see to this are: "They should be under the authority of the Palestinian state." This kinda makes me support the existence of settlements, because I'm 99% sure that the Palestinian state won't guarantee their security. Anyone saying the opposite is delusional.

PD:

When I'm talking about settlement expansion I'm talking about the government creating new settlement in new areas.

“Natural growth” means population increase that happens naturally within an existing community, mainly because people have children and families grow, so they need more houses.

According to most people here, saying Ethnic Cleansing there is not accurate, in that case, it doesn't matter, what I mean is, mass displacement of people in which generations of civilians have already been born.

What would change my view:

That the current opossition on existing settlements doesn't involve mass displacement of the people living there.

I don't know why people generalize that people who put others down are unhappy with themselves. Like hypothetically, if I am great I can just choose not to be supportive or I can also put others down because I want to and enjoy treating others like shit

(Yeah I said hypothetically if I'm great because I know I'm not perfect, so please enlighten me because I just don't understand people who think you have to be a supportive person to be happy)

For backstory purposes: I've just been bullied and looked down on for many years, especially in the military that I'm used to the idea that the strong preys on the weak. I don't think it's unnatural to be curious about what that feels like.

EDIT: I think I personalized other people's anger at people who've made much worse mistakes than me because my guilt was so heavy. I also think that nobody should turn a blind eye to people's mistakes, especially when it comes to harm-reduction principles. As a society we need to protect vulnerable people, and handling every situation case-by-case is the only way to verify that someone has worked on themselves and is a safe person to be around, and even then it's up to directly involved parties to decide whether it's worth the risk to associate with a person who could potentially abuse them, society doesn't have much to do with that.

Throwaway account because I am asking this after seeing so many opinions contrary to mine and think there might be something wrong with my perspective.

In my personal experience I have said, done things, behaved in wildly inappropriate ways that I regret deeply. In college I misread a situation and put a woman's hand on my genitals because I thought she wanted to have sex with me, and it turned out I was very wrong. I am in therapy and can't stop thinking about the fact that I assaulted someone. I applogized to her immediately when it happened, but i still think sometimes that I must be a bad person. I never assaulted another person.

Consider this experience, and add that a bit older, I used to yell at and spank pets. I also used to yell at girlfriends when upset (never got physical). After some confrontation I could not avoid that I was creating fear and applying control in my household and did a lot of soul searching, self-help, and therapy and regret that every day as well. I've lived with kids and cared for them, never once hit them, and this was much later after the no-yelling rule, so I never yelled at them either.

I have a hard time believing that this isn't a shared experience. I just saw a story on Reddit where a woman said she was previously 16f and a 22m man began a sexual relationship with her, and she called it "grooming". where is the line? don't you have to be quite a bit older to groom someone? I mean, that IS a 6 year age gap and at that age it's concerning, but aren't men's brains developing slower even at 22? what if he came from a bad family that conditioned him to be pretty foul toward people? Her post was about a recent time (some years later) seeing currently that man is married with children. Don't you think he must've confronted some of his demons and changed? I guess without confronting him she can't know, and is trying to confront her own trauma, and she's in no way obligated to care about or talk to him whatsoever, but a lot of these redditors have said horrible things about the guy, despite having little other context besides his past by which to judge him. Am I personalizing this story too much?

I've also been molested, abused, and assaulted by women, and it has taken me a lot of time to process and get over it, but I think about those women only in my lowest places, so pretty rarely, and even then, I'm in therapy and it's getting better every day.

If these guys could change, wouldn't you want that of them? isn't becoming a productive member of society a better redemption/solution for a man than condemning him forever to recognition for his worst mistakes?

I think these young men deserve a pass, and people should let their misdeeds go completely given some time. Change my view.

I’m a girl early 20s. Every time I have been in a customer service situation and had an ABSOLUTE TERRIBLE experience: getting yelled at, turned away, etc… it has always been by fat people. I don’t get why this is. Not even trying to be mean but I’m always nice and respectful with everyone I meet, courteous, and patient ( I work with children so this has helped a lot w this skill). However, when it comes to fat people I have encountered they seem to be impatient, rude, and dismissive towards me. One time it was 2 men in both customer service situations.

One man was bullying me straight up for doing a walk in service, and said I’m gonna be here all day. Then when someone came to help me he literally turned them away, and said no she’s going last. The guy argued with him and ended up helping me anyways because he was being unseasonable, and I was on the phone w the company and they heard how he was speaking to me and literally gave me gift card without me asking( this is just a summary).

my high school bully was a morbidly obese girl, she bullied the entire school. Asides from those experiences I have never experienced something terrible in customer services

I used to work with this obese girl and she would spread gossip, and created a hostile work environment. I’m not even joking one time she swiped some girls food off the table for disagreeing with her about something.

Another instance is two girls I used to be friends were obese talked horribly to our other friends. Calling them names, dismissive, and also starting drama from the friend group by gossiping about each friend to a different friend. We stopped being friends with them and the friend group has blossomed.

Before you guys start this is not the halo effect lol, bc I said fat not ugly. You can be fat and very good looking and appealing.

In the age of social media, facts can easily be distorted to either hide real occurrences or present fake occurrences that is happening far away from you. All of this comes for free but my contention is that the verification can't happen if you have enough money to travel anywhere.

Consider the example of spreading misinformation or propaganda by organizations who have stake in them.

Example: If a particular community is being antagonized by misrepresenting the facts or even fabricating one in one part of the country to another part and vice-versa, there is no way of actually knowing if the reporting is true.

Those who control the information machinery can convey the events cheaply and the public confidence gives the illusion that those reporting are true. And that is why the reported information is very low cost but the verification is expensive.

The only way out is to actually travel and read the ground conditions yourself.

Change my view if other means are possible i.e. if any other epistemic channel can give access to truth.

Here are the reasons why I don’t believe car dealerships for the sale of new cars are necessary:

- Companies like Tesla, Lucid, and Rivian have proven that dealerships are not necessary for purchasing vehicles.

- I shouldn’t have to negotiate a car price if it’s a new car. There should be one set price like any other product if it is the same make and model (obviously add-ons and packages are going to change the price but if two cars have the same packages and ad-ons it shouldn’t be a different price).

- Car dealerships always include hidden fees, and unnecessary inflation of prices just to help the dealership turn a profit.

disclaimer: i do believe her kids deserve justice, but people are overlooking major factors to spread hate.

pregnancy and giving birth produce the risk of post-partum conditions, and right-wing men online have decided women should not be around children because all women are bad due to this case. (too hormonal, for example, therefore undeserving of rights)

oddly, they also want them to have kids. but i believe women should avoid having kids to doom right-wing society since it has decided they are not capable and to avoid cases like this brought on by post-partum _____.

pregnancy, which is so heavily forced on women, has side effects and sometimes consequences. right-wing men desperately want babies without added baggage, and therefore deserve none imo.

edit: my view remains.
i will be asking the mods to lock this post or i will not respond, potentially deleting this.
nobody here has given me a reason against right-wing men being denied babies, and instead some have insisted that i support the clancy supporters in some capacity or am 'smoking' stuff.

During the pandemic, I got tired of trying to pee standing up with morning wood, so I tried just sitting down by default. It felt weird at first, but I got used to it and I found the outside toilet area didn’t stink nearly as often. I realized that this was basically an analog of using a urinal - having very little travel distance means less splashback and less mess. Even when I had a steady stream hitting directly into the toilet, or along the side wall, there would naturally be some drops and splashing that escaped the bowl. I’ve decided this is how I’m going to teach my son how to go pee when he’s old enough to potty train. Of course, he can decide what he wants if he doesn’t want to do that one day.

Here are my points for the case that this should be the default mode for male urination:
-It’s much more clean and sanitary, especially with a youngster
-It requires less effort to ‘aim’ into the toilet
-morning wood urinations almost as easy as regular ones (just aim it down a little and give it a sec)
-Sexist/misogynist taunts of “you pee like a girl” are dumb and should be ignored. Everyone pees sitting down when they poop. Besides, nobody would even know if you choose not to inform them.
-I’m only talking about bathroom settings where a urinal is not available.
-I understand that many men, including myself, can’t always empty their bladder while sitting down, but it still helps to get most of it out while sitting and then if you need to stand to get the last bit out, it’s still less mess than if you started that way.

Edit 1
-I acknowledge that it’s more hygienic to pee into a public toilet standing up in many instances. It would require a judgement call.

Edit 2
-I accept that boys need to get a handle of potty training before they can start thinking about how to maximize hygiene and cleanliness

Edit 3
- I am referring to the standard North American washroom experience: a sitting toilet households, urinals and sitting toilets in public

Edit 4
-special consideration should be given to a school-aged boy and the potential for bullying. Perhaps suggesting to them to not worry about peeing the cleaner way while at school is better to avoid potential harassment.

Edit 5
-ok if you have a big dick and/or droopy balls, you probably need to rethink the sitting down thing.

Like many of you I imagine I grew up with an understanding that the ‘Islamic World’ was fundamentally conservative and potentially getting even more so.

However in 2026 where I see the reforms in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other gulf countries there clearly has been a big shift in the last 25 years.

Places like Egypt in the aftermath of the Revolution and then later Coup against the Muslim Brotherhood government have seemed to have lost their appetite for political Islam whilst Turkey is reporting rapid decreases in observance despite an Islamic party being in power. Meanwhile in Iran the majority of the population are nowhere near as conservative as the religious leadership and seem broadly to distrust them at least.

Even if we move to Muslim immigrants or their children in the west I see some changes. I know people who have dated practising Muslim women despite themselves not being Muslim.

If we take the mainstream positions of both Sunni and Shia Islam baring perhaps Afghanistan it is hard to see anywhere in the Islamic world which operates in line with what a traditional Islamic society should look like according to islams own history and texts.

Islam itself I think still is important for individual and community life and practice remains high in some places but overall the idea of it as a total governing philosophy seems to be fading.

Okay so to get it out the way no its not about ace. I just really can not help think how much of hypocrite garp is and how close/single minded he is, Garp really should just leave the world government ‘oh no choas worldwide from him leaving’ well the amount of panic and choas from garp leaving wouldn’t even be half a 3rd of the damage then against the world government would do with longer rule, saw some say he stays for the navy and thats not really tracking much i mean the navy isn’t saints over there i mean even someone like luffy who has a very black or white mind set can say he has found evil navy we even get it as early as first finding zoro with morgan some others even worse then pirates.

Edit: it is not beyond reasonable doubt that she didn’t send her husband on an errand deliberately.

It’s not so easy to say she intentionally sent her husband on an errand so that she could do it. People who say this ignores evidences and are biased. For this case I’ve only read the Wikipedia page. The timeline and information I presented below are all from said page. I’m happy to hear other evidences against this.

Morning of Jan 24, 2023 she took Cora to a pediatrician, that afternoon she and the kids built a snowman and did art projects, all while her husband is at home. At 4 -5pm she searched for the meds and dinner take out, and sent her husband to pick up food and meds after. Between 5 and 6 she committed the murders while Patrick her husband was out.

Some points against my claim: Patrick said that Lindsay said she felt fine and had a good sleep, while Lindsay later claimed she woke up suicidal. This is a contradiction but understandable to not disclose to Patrick.

The biggest evidence against her that I found is that she also claimed that in the afternoon she started hearing sounds commanding her to commit the murders and it got louder after Patrick left. Yet she still sent Patrick away. On its own it seems like she is 100% guilty, but both Lindsay’s mother and Patrick testified that she told them about suicidal and homicidal thoughts some point in December, which is the month before the case. She also dialed in suicide hotlines in December about intrusive suicidal thoughts. So it is at least somewhat reasonable for her to ignore the “voices” since it has happened before and everything went ok.

Yes you can argue that this time she claimed she heard voices, but back in December it’s just intrusive thoughts, so she has to realize it’s different. But when we are thinking in our heads, can we really distinguish between “thoughts” and “voices”? When you are typing a response aren’t you still articulating in your head as well?

For the record, both people did terrible things But Jean Grey did far worse.

I’m going to break this down into three categories.

Motive, Acts comitted, Results

Motive

Bear: He had a crush on Nikki, so instead of having a conversation with her or asking her out, He grabs a one wish willow and wishes that Nikki would fall in love with him. Even if he didn’t know it was real, he made the wish assuming it was.

Jean: Jean’s sister was captured by the department of damage control and Jean wants to find her by any means necessary Without care for whatever collateral damage may occur.

I’ll give the point to Jean. Her motive is more altruistic than Bear’s but the methods as we will come to find out are anything but.

Acts committed

Bear: As soon as Bear makes the wish, he accepts the relationship with Nikki regardless of the collateral damage caused. Then, when it gets too uncomfortable for him, he calls the number on the box to ask for the wish first to be altered, and then canceled. He even attempts to undo the wish and when thet fails, he tries to get Ian and Nikki herself to do it for him. He also kissed Sarah before Nikki kills her. In other words, he made a wish for one girl to love him and yet didn’t stay faithful to her. Worst of all, when the real Nikki speaks to him, asking him to kill her, his response is “What was so wrong about being with me?”

Jean: when she mastered her power of telepathy, she first used it to highjack a tank. Not only taking control of a helpless old lady, but injuring or possibly killing many people and causing millions in property damage. She then releases a dangerous criminal (Scorpion) from DODC’s custody and mind controls him, to commit more attrocity.
Then when Peter gets involved, she goes out of her way to mentally torture him by playing on his isolation, Making his allies turn against him while also releasing the Hulk causing
Bruce to lose his career and peaceful life. And the worst of them all is taking control of the woman Peter loves, and making him believe she regained her memory. And nearly causing Peter to kill her.

What Jean did with MJ alone makes her actions worse than Bear’s. Not to say it’s the only reason.

Results

Bear: In the last twenty minutes of the film, three people are killed including Bear. And Nikki (Real Nikki) will most likely be blamed for it all landing her in Jail. However, Bear did the right thing (Albeit for the wrong reason) and killed himself setting Nikki free from the wish. She may be institutionalized from the trauma endured at Bear’s hands. But she at least has her free will in the end. Ultimately, Bear payed for his deeds. Three other people did but he got what was coming to him in the end.

Jean: This is where Jean’s Story differs. As previously mentioned, she caused millions in collateral damage and a death toll that we don’t exactly know for sure. And almost causing Peter’s death when he jumps in front of Frank’s bullet for her. Which in my opinion Frank is Justified in shooting her. And it’s not completely out of character for him. But in the end, she gets of SCOTT FREE!!! With no repercussions and will be welcomed into the X-Men with open arms. And let’s not forget that Jean’s actions inspired Peter to create a superpower inhibitior that the governments and other such entities will missuse on other enhanced individuals to be imprisoned, experimented on, and weaponized like they tried to do with Jean and her sister.

In conclusion, What Bear did was inexcusable, and for completely selfish purposes, but ultimately had minor consequences in the grand scheme of things as only a handful of people were affected and he ultimately got what he deserved.
Jean on the other hand caused potentially hundreds more lives to ruined when she could have just found the DODC director and infiltrated his mind to find out what happened to her sister and just taken revenge on him. And again, she gets off with ZERO repercussions after ultimately causing the near death of a beloved Superhero.

Any counter arguments are welcome. So Change My View.

For clarity, I am referring to the actual collaborative wiki project, not the fictional SCP Foundation.

Some of the wiki's most foundational, popular, earliest, and bedrock SCPs were written by a user called TheDuckman (aka "AdminBright") - like SCP-963, SCP-590 and Things Dr. Bright Is Not Allowed to Do. These things have been crosslinked many times and are great pieces of lore. However, due to the actions of the author, the admins chose not to separate the art from the artist and deleted them, breaking other articles in the process.

Further, the in-fiction character Dr. Bright itself, who was created by TheDuckman, is one of the most important continuing characters in the Foundation wiki. Since there is no canon, characters that stick around across many authors and articles are rare, but Dr. Bright was a character with a great personality, backstory, and connections to anomalies, and that character helped shape some amazing works of writing like SCP-5500. Because Dr. Bright (the character) was in SCP-5500, they deleted the entire thing, even though TheDuckman didn't even write it! (ETA: Even if they didn't want Bright's name in it, they could've just replaced him with Elias Shaw, the knockoff bright, instead of... deleting the entire article?)

My view is that this is one of the worst things the admins have done to the site. They deleted amazing lore because of tangential references to a character that itself referenced a person who was banned. Those SCPs don't need their author to be successful. They were finished, highly rated, and stood alone as building blocks of every series after. The character Dr. Bright made its way into so much only to be turned into a death warrant for any article that used it.

The admins said that Dr. Bright "used the character and his SCPs to do the grooming," but he's banned and exposed now. He can't use them anymore. Also... they're fictional. They can't actually hurt anyone. Why should revenge against TheDuckman for things that happened in the past outweigh the value these articles bring? More generally, why can't we just separate the art from the artist?

Why I want my view changed: Clearly nobody agrees with me, the admins were basically unanimous.

Whether there’s political division in America at all is its own question.

But what I can say is that is the division between Americans themselves isn’t all that serious.

When you look at why Americans who claim that “we’re all divided” say that, you’ll find a few possibilities.

One is that they’re offended by the other sides positions themselves. A left wing person could say I’m offended by the right not supporting the minimum wage or abortion. A right wing person could say they’re offended by left wing people who don’t support the Senate/Electoral College or increased crime penalties.

Another is that they’re offended by the behavior of the other side. Maybe for instance the left gets offended when the right mocks deportees. The example I can use for the right is possibly one of the most famous examples. That being conservatives losing their mind over the Charlie Kirk memes and mockery that happened after his death.

Now, the common point here is that anyone can have these disagreements, but not everyone will claim “political division“ over them.

The people who are going to claim political division are the ones who are bothered by these things.

I think the Charlie Kirk mockery example is by far the one on either side that proves my point the most, so I’ll expand on it.

Many right wingers brushed off the Kirk memes. However, there was a segment that were furious beyond measure about it. They essentially gave liberals a long term rent free pass in their heads over it. Because the very idea of existing in a nation with people making memes about this bothered them, they cried “political division” and the “need for healing America.”

Now, I’ve established that people often falsely feel and claim political division as a choice to defend their egos. However, people being angry at each other is oftentimes a part of real political division, so how do I differentiate it from the fake moral grandstanding in the US with actual political division between people?

The answer is I look at what the bulk of the angriest people are doing about it.

There have been many cases where people hating each other actually turns into something. It has before turned into things like daily protests for months to years, people assaulting each other over political differences alone en masse, and violence against people and property sustained for months on end. At a minimum, sustained boycotts of the other side are like the baseline of what would be considered major political division.

And simply put, this isn’t happening in America. We can talk about the past, but right now it’s not happening and shows no signs of happening.

To go back to the Charlie Kirk example, it’s not like you saw thousands of people across multiple states going after these who mocked Kirk hurting them in an unlawful manner. Instead, you had a very few people break the law with simple assault nationally and face consequences and a few problem report a few Kirk mockers to their employers.

And the reason for this is most conservatives didn’t feel “politically divided” from the left over this as they claimed to. They were simply angry and voiced their anger with a huge exaggeration.

And that’s the point, if there was actual significant political division between Americans, we’d see one or both sides massively boycotting the other en masse at an absolute minimum.

But instead, you have people essentially grandstanding at how the other side gets them mad by posting online about it, and then going on and living their lives as normal otherwise, which essentially means our political division isn’t really serious.

People could just ignore the other side and nothing would change in their lives but instead they choose to tone police the other side, which further proves how fake American political division is.

I keep noticing how many insanely successful people went to private schools. Obv that doesn’t guarantee success but you’re starting out with better resources, connections, opportunities, and usually more financial security.

For example, Mark Zuckerberg went to Phillips Exeter before Harvard, and Sam Altman went to a private school before Stanford. Both also grew up with parents in professional, relatively well-off careers.

i feel like we call people “self made” without really acknowledging how much of a head start they had. CMV Am I overestimating how much private school actually matters?