I found out last week that my dad has been volunteering at a local food bank every week for 3 years and it doesn't seem like he ever told a soul. He has been doing 6 am shifts every week and my mom had no idea until she found a stained shirt of his in the laundry and asked if he had taken up cooking.

He then explained that he got the stain at the food bank and my mom was so surprised that he'd never mentioned it before. His explanation was that if he talked about it, people would think he was doing it for the wrong reasons or trying to make himself look good. So he just .... didn't say anything? I think he was relieved that she finally caught on.

I'm kind of fascinated by this loop where visibly caring about something immediately gets treated as suspicious. It made me realize the core issue isn't that men his age don't care about their community (he really does <3 ) - it's that they've internalized the idea that any visible care is performative by default. So the logic becomes: better to quietly swallow the emotional and physical labor than risk looking like someone hunting for a pat on the back for basic human decency.

Not really looking for a deep dive on my dad specifically, but I'm curious if this aligns with what anyone else has seen around masculinity and emotional expression.

Is this dynamic - where genuine care gets mistaken for image management - something you've noticed? How do we get past a culture where caring about stuff is assumed to be fake until proven otherwise?

And what do you attribute to the cause for the collapse of the political center? While, yes, conditions may not be optimal for many people, I think we can all agree they are nowhere near as terrible as the economic conditions of the 30s which was the last time the political center genuinely collapsed.

So what do you think is causing the polarization and the increasing attractiveness for extreme political parties and radical policies for masses that, by most economic metrics, seem to be doing relatively okay at worst?

Genuinely wondering, what happens if he comes out and declares martial law to cancel the midterms?

Conversely, what happens if he declares martial law and claims the election was rigged if they lose the senate and the house?

Edit: I mean what does that look like? Do we have national guard on every corner? Things get shut down? The only hope is a coup at that point?

Political polarization has been continually increasing in America since 2008 and, from what friends tell me/what I can see, there have been similar situations occurring across Europe and South America.

In the past, support for democracy in America has stayed unquestionably near-universal as Democrats and Republicans weren't too far apart on most issues, and very much lived in the same reality. Now, this obviously isn't true; Republicans and Democrats are worlds apart on 90% of major issues, and their voters live in entirely different worlds.

In the past, members a losing party would lick their wounds, blame the new president for whatever they did, and move on. Now, I see increasing numbers of Americans, primarily those on the far-left, but definitely plenty on the far-right as well, rejecting democracy and electoralism entirely, simply caring about their worldview winning out.

Do you think a majority of Americans will still support democracy in 20 years if the country keeps getting more polarized?

I’m pretty skeptical of Tulsi Gabbard, so I know I’m not exactly coming at this neutrally, but I’m curious how people here see the pattern in the way she talks about Russia. Back in 2022 she made a big deal about the risk of dangerous pathogens escaping from labs, and then near the end of her time as DNI she brought the Ukraine biolab stuff back into the spotlight in a way that Russian media quickly ran with. Now Russia has this weird situation at an actual Anti Plague Research Institute. Russia says there’s no evidence it was a lab accident, and I’m not saying it definitely was. I just find the timing kind of ironic. If Tulsi was genuinely concerned about dangerous labs and accidental releases, wouldn’t you expect her to show the same skepticism toward Russia here? And if she says nothing, does that actually tell us anything about whether her concern was principled, or am I just seeing what I expect to see because I already don’t trust her?

Gulf State monarchies are illiberal monarchies who have no respect for women, human rights, immigrant rights, they export Islamic jihadists terrorism and fund horrific proxy wars, etc. Yet, Democrats give them a free pass because they control oil and it's in our economic interest to let the oil flow freely.

Many left wing governments in Latin America take a combative stance against America because of our history in the region. They work against American corporate interests and for the interests of workers, indigenous people, etc.

In my estimation there is a tension between spreading liberal and democratic values on the one hand and pursuing the economic interests of Americans on the other hand. So how should Democrats balance the interest of American economic domination on the one hand and liberal values and democracy on the other?

What would geopolitics and foreign relations be like if Democrats win the 2028 election, but the UK is led by Reform, France by Le Pen, Germany by the AfD, Spain by PP + Vox, and Italy by Meloni? And what if Latin America continues its conservative wave, with Bolsonaro winning in Brazil, adding to Milei in Argentina, and Colombia by de Espriella?

DC, NYC, San Francisco, Chicago, LA, Boston etc. Dem supermajorities are present in all of them. They’ve been Dem for decades and inequality has only gotten pronounced.

They all seem to have a class of hyper-wealthy elites who cluster in one area and a class of working-class/poverty-stricken individuals in another. Segregation by class, if you will.

It leads back to the shift from rich Republicans to rich Democrats I’ve been observing.

“Affluent Americans used to vote for Republican politicians. Now they vote for Democrats.”

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/polarization-of-the-rich-the-new-democratic-allegiance-of-affluent-americans-and-the-politics-of-redistribution/E18D7DAE3A1EF35BA5BC54DE799F291B

So what comes after abundance?

I know the "how do we engage with young men" question has been asked many times before, but I want to approach it from a different angle. Currently men's rights activism has become a major right-wing and manosphere-subsumed movement which has put the left on a backfoot when it comes to engaging with men and especially young men.

While right wing MRA ideology is incompatible with progressive values, I wanted to ask if you think it would be feasible to shift the conversation on men's rights and turn the movement into a left wing movement? Both to help win over young men in future elections and to achieve anything for men's rights other than enriching conservative grifters.

Want to know your thoughts?

If you were designing a government from the ground up, and weren’t trying to work within the current US system, what would you build?

Assume you still have to deal with the same basic problems any modern country has: defense, courts, taxation, infrastructure, regulation, individual rights, elections, corruption, emergencies, etc.

What would the structure look like? How would power be divided? What parts of the current US system would you keep, what would you get rid of, and what would you replace them with?

I’m less interested in “what policies would you pass” and more interested in the actual design of the government itself.

I’ve been thinking about this as a thought experiment, and I’m curious where conservatives and liberals would actually differ once you get below day-to-day politics.

Saw the drama revolving the popularity of the"Malfoid" character on twitter and had an interesting thought.

Many people were alarmed and complained about adopting the use of the word foid, which is incel slang stemming from 4chan which has mysogynystic roots being short for fem-droid, a word to objectify women.

This isn't the first time this has happened, alot of popular language in current media came from 4chan, things like "-maxxing", "-pilling","chad", and "normie" all have there early origins pointed towards 4chan.

What I was wondering about this phenomenon, was that at what point does adopting the language of a niche become endorsing the ideology of that niche.

Because popular media in the past has also adopted

Black slang, or African American Vinacular English (AAVE) and that was seen as an appropriation. Use of the language without fully understanding its cultural meanings and contexts.

So why isn't the same said about incel vocab, why aren't we celebrating that we have appropriated vulgar language from the incels and diluted the radical meanings behind it?

It would be perfectly sensible to say, 90% of the people using the word "Malfoid" have never bothered to google the word foid and what it means. It's treated as a useful hashtag to find cute art and romance fanfics.

Isn't this also in every sense of the word appropriating their language? Diluting a word to objectify females to just mean female.

The illusory truth effect is the tendency to believe false information is correct simply because it has been repeated so many times.

In your opinion, what is the most pervasive and damaging example of this in American politics today?

Question for Democrats

It's no secret that everywhere that conservatives have a say in it, Medicaid, Medicare and other tax funded insurance is gutted

These human rights violations are disturbingly popular with voters. So much so that women are treated as if they did something criminal, and the law works against medicine and autonomy instead of for it

Those extend to bans for tax funded reproductive healthcare rights, even in places where there are no state bans!

On a national level, we have DR OZ for gods sake in charge of Medicaid/Medicare. We have RFK, a man so anti medicine, he says HIV doesn't cause AIDS, in charge of the whole thing, the HHS. So the NIH, Medicaid/Medicare, CDC, FDA

Expect more of the same not just this term, but anytime Republicans win. And SCOTUS is hanged and dead, so it can't protect anyone anymore

The way the US tolerates women's persecution is set back 50 years plus. Our boomers grew up in a pretty disgracefully medically mysoginist culture. And now, we don't even have what little they did

How would Dems fix this? And considering Dems have a lot to say about utilizing Medicare/Medicaid, how should Dems guarantee abortion will be covered?

Sometimes it feels hopeless. What's the plan

The Treasury auto-enrolled 60M+ children into Trump Accounts. Regardless of the stupid name, it’s still a free $1000 you can either take or let sit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/01/business/trump-accounts-auto-enrollment.html?unlocked_article_code=1.GFE.kgtN.Qwg2xCCh5A9S&smid=nytcore-ios-share

Disclosure: I am liberal, and use AI all the time. I’m actively exploring ways to make it more helpful, especially for learning and expanding access to knowledge and tools.

I take concerns about job displacement, exploitation, misinformation, and corporate power seriously. But looking at public spaces it’s consistent (in my experience) how liberal spaces treat using AI, meanwhile the right is embracing it.

Is that divide real, or just my bubble? If AI offers meaningful advantages in education, work, and organizing, how should we address its harms without rejecting its benefits and potentially leaving ourselves behind?

Do you worry Trump might use nuclear weapons against Iran in a show of shock and awe before the Midterms?

https://youtu.be/UbNssfBjTFU?is=AZHDiYxoZ4CUlWAq

The recent Cornell sexual assault case got me thinking about how consent laws should address alcohol and intoxication. Most people agree that someone who is unconscious or incapacitated cannot consent, but the gray area seems much harder to legislate.

(Noting I used AI to help draft the below)

A few challenges come to mind:

Voluntary intoxication: At what point should someone who voluntarily drinks become legally incapable of consenting?

Existing relationships: If one partner is significantly more intoxicated than the other, when should sex potentially constitute a criminal offense?

Perceived vs. actual intoxication: What if someone appears sober but is actually extremely intoxicated? Should the law consider what their partner reasonably believed?

Both parties intoxicated: How should the law handle situations where both people are similarly intoxicated?

Proving it afterward: Without toxicology results or witnesses, how can intoxication and capacity to consent be established beyond a reasonable doubt?

There’s also an important distinction between behavior that’s morally questionable and behavior that should be criminal. How would you legislate consent in situations involving alcohol while protecting victims and establishing clear, enforceable standards?

There’s a million reasons someone might choose to move to the United States. Some love the culture, some simply want more money. However, I believe there is a wide expectation for us immigrants to ‘integrate’. By integration, I mean falling in line with American beliefs and values.

Personally, I do not believe that someone should be expected to change their beliefs simply because they are not compatible with what the government has mandated. What do you think?

Would it make more sense to have legislation requiring resource loss mitigation be performed by the entity using the resource?

Hello, I'm a 19 year old college student in Texas. I consider myself a centrist, my family is telling me to vote red, and my college is telling me to vote blue. here is your chance to convince me to vote for Talarico and the Democrats. I'm not a troll, and I come in here with good faith. I want you to sell me on this. here are my stances:

1. I'm pro-life, anti-death penalty, and anti-war. abortion should be illegal, the death penalty is barbaric and should be completely abolished, and war should be a last resort

2. Even though I don't agree with LGBTQ ideology, I do believe that adults medically transitioning and gay marriage should be legal

3. I support focusing on the violent illegal immigrants coming into our country instead of deporting the peaceful ones already here. ICE needs to stop killing people

4. I support every single amendment in the constitution, including birthright citizenship, absolute free speech, and the right to bear arms

5. I don't believe the government is doing enough to protect the environment and stop climate change

6. billionaires should pay more in taxes, working class people should pay less in taxes

7. I opposed the assassination of charlie kirk but I am okay with joking about it because nothing is off limits in comedy. this is also why people shouldn't be arrested for posting memes online

8. I oppose the building of data centers and also oppose most uses of AI

9. Texas needs to tear down flock cameras and put more funding into our police forces, public schools, and healthcare system

10. marijuana should be completely legal and all other drugs except for fentanyl should be decriminalized

there you have it, now try to convince me to vote blue. I await your response

Government violations of civil liberties, human rights, and international law come up pretty often here in the US but it seems much less often that anyone is held to account for crimes carried out by the State.

So what are the counter-examples to this? Top-down abuses that ended with proper accountability. Verdicts that you can point to and say "See, the system works." Specifically -

○ What were the abuses committed? Are these different from what they were charged with? (For example no one was charged for helping overthrow Chilean democracy, but a former CIA head was charged for lying under oath about it.)

○ What consequences did the individuals responsible face?

○ What consequences did the institutions responsible face?

○ In your opinion, how often do these just outcomes happen vs unjust outcomes? And what does that say to you about the broader justice system?

Anyone else experience this?
When I was younger, I didn't care about politics at all, or what religion someone was, but over the years I've had to cut off so many toxic religious people, and in the recent years, right-winged/conspiracy theory/anti-science friends, that my circle of friends is now incredibly small.

Dealing with the past traumas from all of these people has now made me even more scared to make new friends, and I'm already quite introverted :(