I'll first start off by saying the left definitely does this too, like let's say they pretend hamas doesn't hide behind civilians or recruit children and blames all child/civilian casualties on Israel. Blames islamic terrorism on "white supremacy" instead of religious and cultural indoctrination or how they might blame homelessness or foster home enrollment on a lack of access to abortions or somehow it's all LGBT kids getting kicked out by their homophobic parents when the real answer is almost always drug addiction or mental illness, but this post is going centered on the right wing.

I grew up being bullied wherever I went pretty much and whenever I got in trouble for lashing out at kids who did so and I got an invite to the principal's office and even in one instance the superintendent's office, one of the main questions they would ask me or parents over and over again was either, was my father absent from my home life or did I play violent video games and they even pushed me to take written surveys to answer these questions.

Meanwhile the reality was I clearly wasn't reacting to other kids because of video games or my relationship with my father, I was lashing out because of harassment and because I valued boundaries. Looking back at it now I get the impression that they were far more focused and obsessed on trying to prove that video games and absent father figures caused violence and poor behavior than actually trying to address the actual root of the in issue first hand.

Even many of these black inner city kids who acted up who I knew well enough, believe it or not, had father figures, they acted the way they did because their ghetto trap culture encouraged their behavior and their family members were the same way as they are, this is where I knew that how someone turns out has alot more to do with who and what environment that did raise them and not what family member didn't raise them. And throughout all the church sermons, all the religious media I watched the message of the stigma was consistent, if kids didn't grow up with their father or if their father didn't engage with them enough they would without a doubt all grow up to be career criminals.

Like first of all, did they ever bothered to take a step back and think about how an absent father affects and overburdens the mother? Instead of just assuming all the suffering is placed on the son who realistically couldn't give less of a shit about someone who he's never met. I've always felt like is this whole absent father stigma was all just an attempt to argue women were stupid to raise kids therefore they need a man to do it for them.

Now I have don't have anything against boys getting provided with a male role model or authority figure and I know that two parental figures is better than just one. Fathers are still great but people need to remember that it doesn't just take a father to raise a child, it takes whole village as a matter of fact and it doesn't just require just any father or parent, they have to be of competent too.

And as for the video games segment, violent crime appears to have been at its peek highest in the 80's and 90's with the 1980 being the highest recorded year for homicides per capita all perpetrated by a generation that didn't even grow up video games like they have today, that only leaves us with cultural and environmental circumstances and coincidentally the criminals of those times also grew up during a time where single parent households were far less common.

In 1989, Donald Trump took out full-page newspaper ads demanding the death penalty in response to the Central Park jogger case. Five Black and Latino teenagers had been accused. Their convictions were eventually vacated, and DNA evidence corroborated the confession of the actual perpetrator.

Yet Trump continued to insist that the men were guilty. During the 2024 presidential debate, he falsely claimed they had pleaded guilty and had killed someone.

This raises a broader question that goes beyond Trump or any particular political party: What responsibility should political leaders have when they publicly demand severe punishment before a case has been decided—and what accountability should follow when the evidence later contradicts their position?

There is a legitimate debate about being tough on crime. But should that ever mean treating accusations as proof, or refusing to reconsider a position after an exoneration?

I'd argue that due process matters most when public anger makes it unpopular. A justice system that can be driven by political pressure rather than evidence puts everyone at risk.

I explore the case and its implications for Trump's politics and the rule of law in more detail here:

https://medium.com/discourse/when-someone-tells-you-who-they-are-trump-and-the-central-park-five-1becfecbe3c9?sk=cff941ccbb03544cfdb71bbb74434f17

I study sociology and specialise in the social aspects of identity. I've got a few questions.

Identity being defined as the collection of meanings one uses to think about themselves (how one understands themself). As well as the collection of meanings one uses to think about and interact with others.

For sake of clarity: A named political ideology (a set of political ideas) can be, but isn't necessairly, an identity. It is an identity when one thinks of themselves as that ideology or uses the ideology to group people together. It is Not an identity when one simply thinks about the philosophical ideas and/or application of ideas.

Is the political ideology you most agree with part of how you identify? (Please clarify which you identify with if yes)

If not, why not?

If yes, how do you think that affects your interactions with others? How do you interact with others?

Does it affect other areas of personal expression such as aesthetics (what you wear, decorations, online profiles).

If you found other ideas to be more worthwhile, would you be able to modify your beliefs? If not, why?

There's no correct answers, obviously. However then more honest and sincere, the better. Thank you :)

hi everyone, I'm new to debate, I just had my first scrim, and I got absolutely cooked in my debate. i mainly got cooked by one argument. We had to debate that Capitalism is justified in its use in the US. I was AFF, and my opponent argued that I must prove that its justified in any scenario or smth? i don't really get how i would argue against their "burden of proof"? that's what my coach said. any adivce or tips on how to rebut it would help a LOT! thanks!

Not that they would demand a proper wage for their labor, or at they would quit if they ever felt disrespected, but that they would refuse to do any work, under any conditions, no matter how well they were paid or valued by their employer?

Because that's always your primary counter argument against UBI: Where's all that money coming from? Who's growing the food? Who's building the houses? If nobody has to work, nothing gets produced. That's how it works, right?

However, your logic is inherently based on the assumption that very very few people (only about 1-2% of people, which is quintessentially "nobody") will ever work if they have even the most basic needs met. Not just a comfortable existence, but just the bare minimum. They won't even go to work in order to make a little extra money, as long as they aren't literally starving. UBI won't get them enough to afford a PS5, or anything other than $30 straight talk phone. It will get them the bare necessities so they can survive, nothing more nothing less.

But that doesn't matter: If they have EVEN THAT MUCH, 99% of people will stop working altogether, according to you.

So where's your evidence of THAT?

The "Party" (not sure about the political correctness here since it’s a "just" a List) established itself mainly as an anti-corruption movement, but I can’t imagine that all their members share the same opinion on certain topics (for example in the discussion around the independency of Kosovo, or "simpler" stuff like economics, foreign affairs,…), which they will have to deal with sooner or later.

Am I wrong for thinking that their party/list will shatter into many smaller parties until there is nothing left of it?

Theoretically it’s not a bad thing, but there’s this risk that old SNS voters go back to SNS since they may feel like the students party is too instable and paralyzed in their decision making since their opinions vary too much.

Trump's been saying for weeks that Zelensky can't make a deal and that Ukraine should get a new leader. Is that a legitimate request, or is it asking Ukraine to do something it can't realistically do right now?

On October 10, Trump said: "I suggest they get a new leader who can make a deal because he could have made many deals and for some reason he never does" . He also blamed Zelensky for high US diesel prices, saying "he wants to make problems for the world... with diesel fuel" ( https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-trump-putin-diesel-228ccf74b2848c1ff0ac23f038b37512#1 )

A few days later, Trump said: "He doesn't want to make a deal. He says he wants to, but he doesn't. I'm not a big fan of Zelensky".

The case for Trump's request:
Zelensky's term expired in May 2024. Elections are suspended under martial law, which parliament has extended repeatedly.
Zelensky has said he's willing - under conditions. He told reporters in December 2025 that if the US and allies help ensure security, "within the next 60-90 days, Ukraine will be ready to hold them" ( https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-elections-zelenskyy-trump-explainer-3162f3dfb74196801c45ae9060c02f03 )

Is "he can't make a deal" a fair basis for calling for regime change in Ukraine?
What would a "new leader who can make a deal" actually look like? Trump hasn't named anyone.

What is wrong about not wanting migrants from other countries that do not assimilate to your culture or speak your language?

Every person does this on a small scale. Your circle of friends are likely people who share common beliefs and interests…because you prefer to be around people of the same culture. Companies conduct HR interviews to evaluate whether the candidate truly wants to work for the company and could fit well into the company culture.

Why is it all of a sudden bad when nations do this regarding immigration?

Why are we not protesting like the French???? We have so many reasons to be pissed yet we are so self involved , divided, and happily distracted that we are just sheep watching it happen. A building survived 2 world wars … they lit it on fire! I’m not saying violence and destruction, but our willing ignorance is highlighted and underlined by the passion the French show for their people. Someone please explain why we Americans are not making more of a scene about everything that’s happening?

Ever since Gulf of America debate I have been thinking about this, and increases about those proposals (lastly New Mexico -> New America)
made me draw parallel with my own nation's(Turkey) history and recent history of name changes in Russia due to collapse of Soviet Union

The thing is; those names of the regions-cities-seas etc. change usually after the regime of the countries changing their names changes

What do I mean

Konstantiniyye(Constantinople-Ottomans) --> İstanbul (Turkey) /monarchy to democracy/

Petrograd-St.Petersburg (Monarchist Russia) --> Leningrad (Communist Russia) --> St.Petersburg (Russia today)

My argument is we might be observing change in regime of the US, it might be small but I think there is a chance historians mark Trump's second term as some sort of turning point for whatever changes politics of US gets in future

funny video I found about this subject

I've been looking into how Switzerland is governed, and I actually think their seven-member Federal Council is a pretty interesting idea. Instead of having one powerful president, they share power and rotate the presidency every year.

For a future European Federation, this could solve one of the biggest concerns: Germany or France ending up calling all the shots. And with several people sharing power, its much harder for one populist to take control.

But theres downsides too. Who do you hold accountable when things go wrong? And wouldn't having seven leaders make decisions painfully slow during a crisis?

Curious what you guys think. Would this work better than having a single elected president?

I hear that this is what much of the population is in many countries yet these parties don’t succeed. Even the one rare example of the Danish Social Democrats (conservative on immigration) had their worst ever election result this year and the only sustainable government that could be formed was parties to the left of them and the centrist Moderates, and the parties to the left forced the Danish Social Democrats’ hand in allowing thousands of people to become citizens when the SD didn’t want them to become citizens, in the meantime Danish People’s Party continues to rise in the polls.

BSW couldn’t even get 5% in the last German election.

THANK YOU for insights into voting blocks and Southern Strategy. The “why” question I tried to pose involved major civil rights legislation, I used the 14A and The Voting Rights Act; why a shelf life of only 25 years or so? Bad math by me? Coincidence? Bad execution? I can’t accept they were bad ideas, does a voting majority believe they were?

I usually search for history to justify my observations. So I violate a couple of rules of academic integrity at the very start. My observation here is that the chronology from enactment of the 14th Amendment 1868, to the Supreme Court decision in the Reconstruction cases 1883 to Plessy 1896 is mostly matched by the time span of the Southern Strategy/Voting Rights Act 1965, to Nixon applying the idea on a large scale 1972, to a Republican Southern majority in 1994. It’s not as much an observation only of arithmetic as it is a heads up for those left of center they have a head count problem and large scale center left victories have a lifespan of about 25 years.

social-democratic government: What these people are really asking for is socialism/communism.

If you support socialism or communism, you're asking for violence. You're asking for this country to go to war with itself.

The Bolshevik Revolution was real. In 1917, the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, and the country descended into a bloody civil war. The new government carried out the Red Terror, using mass arrests and executions against political opponents. Here's the historical background on the Russian Revolution:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Russian-Revolution

If you support this idea, have you actually studied what happened? Because this sounds like the same kind of fundamental change that people think will somehow work out differently this time.

And a lot of you are aligned with the No Kings movement. You talk like there are kings running this country, so don't tell me a radical overhaul of our economic system is going to happen without serious resistance. Do you think the people who oppose this are just going to take it lying down? Do you think everyday Americans who disagree with you are going to sit back and accept having their entire economic system changed?

I think this is a naive idea. I don't believe a change this fundamental could happen here without serious conflict, and potentially violence. People need to think about the real-world consequences instead of getting caught up in an idealistic vision of how they think society should work.

There's serious problems in this country, and it's stupid that we have to waste time defending against an idea that could create even bigger ones. People pushing this need to explain how they expect it to work in practice, not just talk about how good it sounds on paper.

And no, not everyone on the left supports this. So to the rational liberals out there, check your own people. This kind of thinking makes you all look bad, and it isn't helping solve the problems we're actually facing.

The historical connection between social democracy, socialism, and communism, these movements have overlapping roots in the socialist and workers' movements of 19th-century Europe. The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party split into Bolshevik and Menshevik factions in 1903. After the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, they suppressed rival socialist parties and consolidated one-party rule.

Here's more historical background on the relationship between these movements and the Russian Revolution:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118620878.ch9

And for anyone who thinks modern American movements aren't pushing to move beyond capitalism, the Democratic Socialists of America's official program outlines its goals, including public ownership of major corporations and essential industries:

https://program.dsausa.org/

That doesn't mean every supporter of social programs wants communism. But it does show that some movements see these reforms as part of a much larger economic transformation. I think people need to be honest about where they want these ideas to lead and what the consequences could be.

I keep seeing the argument that the UK and EU are "openly opposing" Trump's peace efforts, and that Zelensky is being used to undermine negotiations.

After the Diesel deal, Zelensky went to UK. He met with King Charles III at Buckingham Palace and thanked him for the UK's "unwavering support" . He also met with PM Burnham, who said the UK would accelerate delivery of air defense missiles and go "further and faster" in its support. (source - https://www.ukrinform.net/amp/rubric-polytics/4174463-president-zelensky-meets-king-charles-iii.html )

Then he went on Piers Morgan Uncensored and said directly what he had been hinting at. Asked if he felt betrayed by Trump, Zelensky said: "Really, yes ... but it's a little bit more complicated than just my emotions or my feelings" . He said "it's painful when President Trump chooses one side, not our side," and added: "It's a pity we are losing a strong partner" ( source - https://www.reuters.com/5f374b32b07b/world/us/ukraines-zelenskiy-says-it-is-painful-trump-choose-different-side-2026-10-14/ )

He also said Trump's advisers were pushing him "to the wrong side," and that "this is not the right side of history" .

Is this Zelensky "picking public fights"? Or is he a leader watching the US lift sanctions on Russian diesel, and suggest Ukraine needs a "new president" - and then saying so on camera when asked directly?

The UK visit itself was not a campaign against Trump. Burnham explicitly positioned Britain as more reliable than Washington, saying "we are with you for as long as it takes".
Zelensky didn't have to attack Trump to get that. He just had to show up.

I would say yes. 70 out of 90 seminars hosted at a recent conference were explicitly about advancing a particular political narrative/agenda. Including titles like:

 “Feel the F— Fantasy (Redux): Drag, Desire, and Queer Theory at WERK in Psychoanalysis,

“Abolish the Family: A Manifesto for Care and Liberation,” 

“Fragments of a Queer Anarchist Psychoanalysis,”

You can read about it here, it is paywalled but you get a free view per month titled "The Inmates Run the Aslym." Steven Pinker also recently resigned in protest. Additionally, the new APA president is a radical with titled works like  ‘It’s an honor to be in this body’: A Black feminist grounded theory of embodiment through yoga among Black womxn” 

(aside: I have no idea why you need the 'x' here, women doesn't entomologically derive from men- it derives from old english wīfman with wif meaning woman and man meaning any person male or female)

Another is “Sexual Healing: Qualitative Methods as a Radical Pleasure Intervention Against Anti-Black Sexology,”

Combined all this with psychology's known replicability problem (not being able to replicate more than 60% of peer reviewed studies https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5445189/) and I think the bi-partisan commission was right to uncertify the APA

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-inmates-run-the-asylum-at-the-psychological-association-5e6538b7?st=FdNMaY

I keep seeing the argument that Zelensky systematically alienates the countries Ukraine depends on - that he can't negotiate, picks public fights over private ones, and damages relationships that matter. I want to test that against actual evidence, because I think the case is more mixed than it looks.

South Korea recalled its ambassador from Kyiv after Zelensky announced at the UN General Assembly that Ukraine had transferred two captured North Korean soldiers to Seoul. Seoul says there was a prior agreement to keep the transfer confidential to protect the soldiers and their families; South Korea's president publicly threatened "additional measures" and demanded an apology ( https://apnews.com/article/south-korea-ukraine-north-pows-russia-3c4e595f5e603ecd0d7438c000d392cb#1 )

The US relationship is more complicated. There's clear friction. The February 2025 Oval Office meeting devolved into a public confrontation, with Trump accusing Zelensky of being "disrespectful" and "gambling with World War III," and Vance telling him it was "disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media" ( https://apnews.com/article/trump-zelenskyy-vance-transcript-oval-office-80685f5727628c64065da81525f8f0cf#1 )

Ukraine depends on partners who have their own domestic politics. AP notes that Zelensky likely disclosed the POW transfer to build public support in South Korea for weapons aid . Is that cynical manipulation, or standard leader-to-leader pressure when you're the recipient of aid?

When Zelensky publicly pushed back on Trump's Russia posture in the Oval Office, what would a better approach have looked like from his position?

If the argument is "he can't manage relationships," does that make you less supportive of Ukraine?

Hello All!

I sometimes wonder if we'll ever be able to amend the US Constitution again. It seems that the process to get an amendment is unreachable in today's USA. It feels like we're "stuck" and that our country has no real way to evolve our Federal system of self-government.

That said, I'd love to see a new amendment!

Specifically a constitutional amendment that could solve a lot of our country's current problems. I'm calling it the "Sovereignty of Self" (SOS) amendment.

The amendment would:

1. Declare unequivocally that each American Citizen owns (as property) their bodies and minds.
2. Everything produced by our bodies and minds, including information, are to be considered our property. Use of such products is prohibited if such use would profit the user without agreed on compensation.
3. Neither the government nor any other entity may compel an American Citizen to alter their body, nor deny a citizen the right to do so.
4. Everything that a citizen subjects their body or mind to is legal, unless the act explicitly violates another citizen's rights.

*****

Here are some of the upshots of what this amendment would do:

1. Abortion would become a legal right nationally.
2. Use of currently illegal drugs would become legal (not necessarily the manufacture, or distribution).
3. The government would be unable to compel you to take any vaccine or undergo any medical procedure, nor prevent you from doing so. Feel free to modify your body and mind in any way you choose!
4. All information generated by a citizen through the act of living their lives would be their property, and use of this data for profit would have to compensate the citizen.
   1. This would end the current barter system exploited by corporations in the attention economy. E.G. "you can use my platform/site and I get all your data".
   2. A system would need to be created for companies to purchase data from citizens, and these transactions could be taxed.
   3. AI, which has been created using the data from millions of uncompensated individuals, would be required to compensate American's for the use of the stolen property. This would likely re-balance the American economy between haves and have-nots, eliminate our national debt, and save social programs.
5. Suicide would be legal.
6. For-profit news sites would need to compensate those they do stories about, but the non-profit free-press would be able to thrive.

I'm sure there are tons of "Gotchas" I've not thought about. Mostly I've been bewildered by the exploitation of data, loss of privacy, economic imbalances in society, and a rise of AI use that could be employed to manipulate us. I think my own biggest concern is the conflict with the first amendment.

Would love to know what Reddit's Legal Eagles think!

Let's be so real. Rising housing prices, food costs, education, and general of living has one main and obvious cause: Russian sanctions. Sanctioning Russian oil trickles down to Europe's economy. Think about it. Higher gas and oil prices due to alternative and more expensive means of obtaining these natural resources leads to the costs being passed on to the consumer. This then leads to higher food costs and overall cost of living. If Europe wants to survive they should either get rid of these sanctions immediately or declare full on war with Russia. There is no other deal alternative. Of course dropping sanctions is the much easier and morally right option, but who knows what the big wigs in Brussels will be willing to put on the line to promote their rampant Russophobia.

If you disagree, you don't understand economics and you overestimate the impact immigration has had in these countries. If anything, immigrants have kept Europe going and strengthened their economies.

Even if a president's administration (read: his staff) did nothing wrong, it would now be irresponsible for the president not to issue a preemptive pardon.

Trump is reportedly considering issuing the pardon now or soon.

https://www.washingtonsun.com/whitehouse/white-house-weighing-mass-pardons-for-junior-staff

To quote Biden in his pardon of his family membershttps://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-pardons-and-commutations-0

"I believe in the rule of law, and I am optimistic that the strength of our legal institutions will ultimately prevail over politics. But baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families. Even when individuals have done nothing wrong and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage their reputations and finances.

That is why I am exercising my power under the Constitution to pardon James B. Biden, Sara Jones Biden, Valerie Biden Owens, John T. Owens, and Francis W. Biden. The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that they engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense."

and for the pardons of Fauci, the J6 committee, and others.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-pardons-and-commutations-2

"I believe in the rule of law, and I am optimistic that the strength of our legal institutions will ultimately prevail over politics. But these are exceptional circumstances, and I cannot in good conscience do nothing. Baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families. Even when individuals have done nothing wrong—and in fact have done the right thing—and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances."

In light of the above, I would argue that it would be irresponsible for future presidents not to issue similar pardons at the end of their terms. Otherwise, the next administration (or the one after that, perhaps) will simply review and investigate for the purpose of monetarily bleeding people dry.

His appeal to tradition and established institutions constitutes proposed brakes that serve to prevent (r)evolutions from becoming hijacked by the whims of the few.

I understand Burke’s critique of the events of the French Revolution not as a refutation of progress but as an alternative philosophy of progress, and a superior one at that.

I don't believe this is a particularly outlandish claim to make, but it tends to land weird in conservative circles and I don't really understand why that is.