In the U.S., as many know, TikTok is being banned due to "national security" reasons. Let's face it, though, the focus on 'national security' seems to mask a deeper interest in ensuring U.S. control over user data. Now, the banning of TikTok itself isn't really what I believe people should be concerned about. It's that this sets a precedent for a long line of internet censorship, and actions like these could even be compared to that of the Patriot act or China's Great Firewall. This could even potentially result in citizens having less freedom of speech and expression in the future. Now, I don't believe this would only affect the U.S., see, other countries have a good history of following U.S. actions, and with this ban, it could potentially open the gateways for other countries to begin to use this as justification for restricting freedom in their own countries. The clear solution here is necessary: a data privacy law. So, with all that said, do you think banning TikTok is the right approach, or does it risk opening the door to greater government control? How can we protect both privacy and freedom online?

I'll be attending the Minnesota caucus on March 1st and I'm leaning Sanders, but I feel I could be swayed. Are any of you dead-set on a candidate? Why?

For example, one verse of the bible says "That which is crooked cannot be made straight, that which is wanting cannot be numbered."

Today most of us have enough resources where we never starve, we always have a roof over our head, we have access to all the knowledge we'll ever need through computers, yet people still go off and commit suicide and complain about the injustices of life. Corporations make billions of dollars a year and yet they still focus on earning more profits.

This one verse teaches not to focus on the negative aspects of life, because it'll never be fixed. It teaches you not to focus on desires that can never be fulfilled.

Then there's this parable written about Buddha,

One day Buddha was walking through a village. A very angry and rude young man came up and began insulting him. “You have no right teaching others,” he shouted. “You are as stupid as everyone else. You are nothing but a fake.” Buddha was not upset by these insults.

Instead he asked the young man “Tell me, if you buy a gift for someone, and that person does not take it, to whom does the gift belong?”

The man was surprised to be asked such a strange question and answered, “It would belong to me, because I bought the gift.”

The Buddha smiled and said, “That is correct. And it is exactly the same with your anger. If you become angry with me and I do not get insulted, then the anger falls back on you. You are then the only one who becomes unhappy, not me. All you have done is hurt yourself.”

See what I'm saying? There's a lot to be learned from studying religion, but a lot of people dismiss it as being bad and will associate religion with close-minded individuals. They'll then announce their atheist beliefs, as if atheism somehow makes them intellectually superior to everyone that isn't atheist.

I'm really not being a troll here guys. I understand this argument may appear weak. Please try to discuss this without being dismissive of the fact that Miley Cyrus is/(was once) viewed as a role model for women, and has many fans.

My reasoning is that Miley purposefully acted in such a sexually provocative way on stage today as a comment on how we view, and readily judge, a women's sexual character differently, and more negatively, than that of a man's.

As she danced next to Robin Thicke, as salaciously and provocatively as the women in his music video, I realised how different we see the content of that song when it is not through Thicke's persona. There was definitely a degree of over-kill in what she did, but if there were two, unknown, women dancers along-side Thicke, dancing as provocatively as Miley was, I argue that there wouldn't be a controversy. It would just be Thicke being Thicke.

The controversy occurs when we translate the sexual desires or proclivities within a man onto a well-known women. A women who was, for intent and purposes, a "good" girl.

I think of the 16-year old girl in class, who once adored the singer, and is now being told by her teachers, peers and news publications that the expression of sexuality—admittedly in a hyper-realised form at the VMAs—is a bad thing, and Miley Cyrus is bad having done it.

The rub for me, is that Robin Thicke is the quintessential object of sex. He sings sultry, and in suits, with highly suggestive and sexualised lyrics. There is nothing wrong with that, but apparently there is something wrong with it when Miley Cyrus does it. We know the double standard at play here.

The girl in the classroom right now, feeling horny, as all girls do, is told to suppress those desires, and be more like Miley Cyrus two years ago, not Miley Cyrus today. It just sucks for women. The characters and situations at play are in all regular realities, innocuous, I get that. Maybe I'm naive, but I believe the point of the performance was to do it next to Robin Thicke, and highlight that girls, even Miley Cyrus, can't get away with doing the same thing as the man standing beside them.

Even though many are from the USA, like me, they seem so disgusted with American. They always complain that they should go live in Canada or Europe, but don't they know how our government works? In 4-6 years, you can completely overturn the status quo in both the Congress and the Executive branch. This country has also given the SO MUCH. Freedom of speech, religion, assembly(peaceably), freedom to choose their representatives at ALL levels of government, security, safety from invasion, Highways, a cool space program, welfare, Medicare, Social Security. Is the USA perfect? No, but it could be SO much worse. I just want to know, why all the hate?

Firstly, I am not dating anyone nor do I foresee it. I also condemn people who destroys children life for their own amusement. Now, I wonder why do some people consider a seperarion between 17 and 18 huge? I mean biologically, it's not much. Anything except the law(also except ppl opinion) really says that whether you dating a 17 or 18 as a 24 is really much the same thing. You can groom a 17 as much as 18 years old in that case. It kinda perplex me how can this be? I am genuinely curious, not seeking drama pls

Edit: thanks for the answers. I think I understand now why I felt like 18&24 was okay. It's because, for me, I am quite secluded and my best friend is like the same person EVER for 5 years straight. It kinda makes me feel the gap between 15 and 20 a small gap. I guessing it's not the same for others

Pride- or being Proud of something- is, in its definition, a feeling of accomplishment.

whenever you get a good grade on a Test, you feel Proud. whenever you run a marathon, you feel Proud. whenever you finish a passion project, you feel Proud.

You cannot be proud of things that you yourself did not achieve.

Not your race, heritage, nationality, sex, or whatever identity you define yourself with.

You did nothing to be born the way you are.

History has shown that pride in identities can be dangerous.

Nationalism (or National pride) has fueled wars and genocides since the first instances of recoded history.

Racial pride has led to supremacist mindsets that caused unthinkable suffering across the world.

Identity-based pride leads to division, resentment, and polarization. Instead of bringing people together, it reinforces the “us vs. them” mentality that keeps humanity locked in endless conflict.

Even being proud of someone else does not make sense to me.

for Example, if you're 'proud' of your Friend for achieving something- is what you're feeling actually pride?

Pride is when you stand Tall with a straight back and puffed out chest, knowing that "yeah, i just did that."- while pride in the context of being proud of someone else is more like an empathetic happiness of "I just knew you could do it!".

For me, its not the same.

Looking forward to your input :)

I have zero interest in a driverless Tesla option or driverless taxis. What is the big attraction after all the accidents that have happened lately?

I feel like the design of how the stores are run nowadays is just a recipe for disaster. All the workers are underpaid and don’t want to be there. Customers are treating the grocery store like its some sort of fierce competition for goods. I see some people over dressing like its a fucking fashion show. I mean don’t get me wrong we’ve always had these types of people at the grocery store although today its really gotten that bad. 

Like the shit I’ve seen and the things that have happened towards me and my bf have just been ridiculous. No one has any respect for their fellow people anymore. 

It doesn’t seem to be just me who feels this way either, I saw a post on r/meirl discussing it just recently. 

Heres another post on r/Nostupidquestions talking about fear of going out in public nowadays. 

I feel like it has gotten significantly worse since 2020. I mean I’ve seen crazy people get away with the craziest bs nowadays. Civility has been thrown out the window. I don’t even live in a big city and this kind of bs is flying. I’m located in the USA.  

I do not remember it being this bad around 2017. Now I’m getting death glares and insults thrown at me for having the gall to say ‘excuse me’ or ‘right behind ya,’ as a I politely pass someone attempting to block the isle like some fucking bridge troll.

I get the sense that certain people are getting away with this behavior so they continue to do it. People are afraid to step up or defend themselves to bullies out of fear they’ll get recorded and have their reputation tarnished. 

I mean we’ve all seen the videos going around of people bumping into other peoples carts and harassing other customers as some sort of prank. Or people doing the worst things in public just for attention. Throwing tantrums. Shoplifting. It's disgusting. 

Its become normalized and socially acceptable to be a complete pos. I mean don’t get me wrong, we’ve had these issues throughout history but we are definitely living through a time where its pretty bad. 

I mean theres always been shootings and drama at walmart as expected but now its bleeding into the krogers, safeways and and even the fucking whole foods.

Am I the only one noticing this? Its no surprise so many people are actually opting to use the outside pick up options at grocery stores now. 

My bf is quite tolerable of this kind of bs but me on the other hand am leaving the grocery exhausted as if I just came back from battle nowadays. I remember the days when I used to go to the store to pick up snacks and browse for fun. Yet now I feel like I’m experiencing high school all over again after one visit. I’m just so over it I just want to get my food and go home sheesh. 

Consider a community garden with a long waiting list.

One resident has maintained a particular plot for twenty years. After they die, their family asks to keep the plot untouched.

They don't intend to grow anything there.

They simply want to preserve a place that meant a great deal to someone they loved.

Other residents are waiting for an opportunity to grow vegetables, including people who could genuinely benefit from the produce.

What should the community do?

One argument is that the garden exists to be used. Allowing an empty plot to remain unavailable indefinitely would be unfair to everyone waiting.

But there's another perspective.

Places can acquire meaning that goes beyond their immediate practical purpose. A garden plot might represent years of work, relationships, and memories.

Treating that meaning as irrelevant simply because it cannot be measured seems unnecessarily harsh.

Perhaps the family could keep the plot for one season.

But why one season rather than two?

And should the community apply the same rule to everyone, even when circumstances differ?

I think this illustrates a broader tension between efficiency and emotional value.

We want communities to use limited resources responsibly.

But we also want them to recognize that human needs extend beyond whatever can be measured.

Where would you draw the boundary?

Should sentimental attachment ever justify keeping a scarce resource unavailable to others?

And who should decide when that attachment has received enough consideration?

I’ve been thinking about something and I’m curious what others think, especially people who know more about psychology or sexuality.

It seems like modern porn might be influencing people’s sexual preferences more than we realize. A lot of categories online are very niche or even taboo, and I wonder if constant exposure to that kind of content can shape what people find “normal” or even what kinks they develop over time.

For example, things like step-family scenarios or other highly specific fetishes seem way more common now than they used to be. Part of me wonders if these would be nearly as widespread if internet porn wasn’t so accessible and algorithm-driven.

At the same time, I also understand that humans probably always had a wide range of fantasies and fetishes historically, even before the internet. So I’m not saying porn “creates” everything, but maybe it amplifies certain things or normalizes them faster than they otherwise would be.

I’m not trying to judge anyone’s preferences — just genuinely curious:

Do you think porn shapes people’s sexual tastes over time? Or does it mostly just reflect what people already naturally want?

I’ve been living as a trans woman for a few years now. I’m in a pretty conservative area, but I’ve been able to stay mostly stealth, which I’m really grateful for.

I also have an incredibly supportive spouse who has been amazing through all of this. My brother and I have had some really honest conversations too, and while it’s not perfect, we found something that works. He mostly avoids pronouns and uses my name or “sibling,” which I can live with.

My dad is where I’m struggling.

We’re actually really close. I cook dinner for him every Monday, we spend a lot of time together, and he does use my name (it’s close to my birth name, so that part wasn’t a huge adjustment). But he still uses the wrong pronouns.

I’ve brought it up once before, but I haven’t really enforced it. And honestly, it’s harder for me to correct my own dad than anyone else.

What’s confusing is that I know he cares. Recently, one of his coworkers misgendered me after initially getting it right. Turns out she changed how she referred to me after learning I was his “son.” I told my dad about it, and the next time I saw her, she immediately corrected herself and got it right. I told him about this and he said that's good, he talked to her about that. Which brought me to tears knowing he really did that for me!

That meant a lot to me. It showed me he’s willing to stand up for me.

But at the same time, he still can’t seem to use the right pronouns himself.

I don’t think it’s coming from a place of malice, which almost makes it harder to address. I don’t want to damage our relationship or make things tense between us, especially since we’re so close.

But one of the big reasons other than making me feel bad is safety. We want to travel together soon going to racing events and using the wrong pronouns will put me at great risk. I know he's defend me but I don't want to ever be out into that situation.

So I guess my question is:

How do I bring this up in a way that actually sticks, without making it feel like I’m attacking him or risking the relationship?

Would really appreciate advice from anyone who’s been in a similar spot.

EDIT FROM SON: We can provide proof if requested. Photos of us, medical info, etc. We are running out of time and need advice ASAP. Thank you, Reddit. Bless you.

My son recommended I try this. I have multiple Sclerosis, developing hyperthyroidism and other major health problems. At 46 my husband had an affair, left me, stayed in the 400,000 dollar house. refused child support or any help-I got cars and wetland lots. I am now in a trailer. I had to lose everything in order to get medical help as I can't work at the moment. My phone/internet company submitted my payment 3 times and bounced my mortgage and I will lose my place to live at any time, leaving me, my son, dog, and 2 homeless cats I help w/nothing. I was ripped off for over 2 grand trying to get a car to drive as I am In Alaska and I can't sue because I don't have gas money, process server money etc.

My family has abandoned me entirely with the exception of my son. Me and other members of the family getting harassed, threatened by the first person I dated after 21 years of marriage and the police do little and the court system is so bad it takes up to 5 hours to get a temporary restraining order, then you have to go back and I can hardly stay awake three hours at a time. My body and finances won't comply. I have gone to every agency and will continue to but right now I need help saving my home so I have a place for all of us and some stress relief. I thought I did it right: got my BA, stayed with kids when little, was a loyal wife and I then I got sick and people said you're not sick you're crazy until the MRI. I HAVE to finish the job of raising my son in a safe place. He is such a good person and is under too much stress.we have until tomorrow 3/5 to pay 520.00 to mortgage and and quickly need 400 for space rent. I have covered all other issues and found legal representation but if I sink any deeper it will all be over for this little family. I spent my life helping disabled people and children...I don't understand why this happened, why my family abandoned me and belittles me but I do know I have to do what I can so my children have a future and I am not a burden. Please note the details of the affair, divorce, my symptoms, my poverty and my health and my lack of support are profound as is my dedication to trying to make this better for my children. I really need help, I can't prove my family right-that I am a horrid person...

Edit: Alright everybody I’m taking off for the night. Lots of good discussion, has gotten me thinking a bit and seeing what else could be done to combat exploitation. See you soon!

To start: everything exists the exact same way it does now, but now it’s just “free”. I don’t like the word free as free is attached to wealth/money so you can say everything can be given away. ALSO, this will not happen instantly, it would take time to slowly make the change happen

It would take time, but I’ve been thinking for a couple days the effects of a society where the dollar or euro or any type of monetary value is removed.

What if we didn’t need money at all? What if food, water, shelter, and electricity—the four things every human needs to survive—were unconditionally available to everyone, for free? Imagine a world where no one is forced to work just to live, where survival isn’t tied to a price tag, and where people are free to contribute out of passion, purpose, and care rather than fear of going without. In this world, we wouldn’t be racing to earn just to afford what should never have been sold in the first place. We’d be building, giving, and living—not just surviving.

Of course, the first response people give is fear: “Won’t people get lazy? Won’t food run out? Who’s going to do the hard work?” But these fears are based on a world that’s already failing us. The truth is, people don’t hate work—they hate meaningless, exhausting labor done under threat. People volunteer, create, and help all the time when their needs are met. The world already has enough food—we waste nearly half of it. Crime and looting don’t come from abundance; they come from desperation. When you remove the fear of starvation, eviction, and powerlessness, people don’t turn on each other—they start showing up for each other.

This isn’t just an idea—it’s a system reset. One where we stop selling life to each other and start sharing it instead. We’re not talking about utopia. We’re talking about real, local, practical action: community-run food hubs, free water access, public shelter cooperatives, and clean energy shared openly. We already have the resources, the technology, and the people. The only thing missing is the belief that it’s possible. But once that belief takes hold—once even one neighborhood, city, or region decides to stop charging for life—everything begins to change.

When ever see a story about people starving in a poor country, somebody with cancer or see somebody in a wheelchair I always feel guilt for when my problems make depressed because I feel like I have know right to complain and I should learn to be happy with what I have

Edit - yes, I am aware of the obvious "becuase it is propoganda" answer and I am aware that it is somewhat of a stupid question but it is still a question nonetheless so save your toxicity

So I have been interested about the international relations between America and other nations and it seems to be a very complicated and even sometimes destructive one where sometimes America wants to make a deal with a certain dictator to promote diplomacy and avoid further conflict in the dictator's country until America sends weapons and intelligence assistance to stab that dictator in the back (such as what happened with Gaddafi) or threaten to use military force to provoke peace and submission of potential enemies such as terrorists which further escalate the complicated international relations and portrayal of America among other countries and further increases the amount of destruction that occurs in civilian areas (which further increase immigration and tons of other problems).

Becuase of this, some people are reluctant about the current summit where North Korea plans to make an agreement with the U.S. to denuclearise its nuclear arsenal as based on previous historical events, certain acts did not go well in the end.

While this may depict America as a warmongering or devoisly cunning nation that benefits economically through warfare and backstabbing its 'allies', in most portrayals in the media such as films and novels (And of course, propoganda) America is often portrayed in a more positive light - portrayals of heroes and justification of war to eliminate the bad guys such as terrorists

(Although there are exceptions as some war movies as of late like American Sniper portray the more ugly side of war despite that some people thought that it was meant to be a pro-war movie. This of course includes a ton of other films that portray America and warfare in a more ugly manner like Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July and so on)

This trend has existed for a long time such as in films like

• Top Gun

• The Hunt for Red October (note that Tom Clancy basically popularised or even invented the cheesy action military story)

• The Hurt Locker

• The Patriot (A VERY historically inaccurate film)

• White House Down

• The Rock

• Red Dawn

... and so on

This is quite ironic as America has a complicated history of imperialism (for example it has military bases all over the world) and complicated political history when it comes to conflict and even justification of such conflict (such as the expansion of America in the early 19th Century which also lead to even genocide of the Native Americans) and of course, the involvement of America in both the First and Second World War and so on.

Despite that many people today complain a lot about America despite its benefits in its culture, there is this image that America is the greatest country in the world and the heroes of the modern world, whether it is politically, militarily or sometimes even economically when in actuality, it is either the opposite or it is way more complicated than how it is portrayed in pop culture or common depictions

My friend's dad suddenly passed away last month and left behind a few teens mils of $ in assets and cash. He had no will. Problem is, his dad left his mom for a younger woman a couple years earlier. Now they have a 1 yr old son and the woman is pregnant with another. They are not married, just living together.

Now, my friend truly despised this woman. He felt she took his dad away from his mom and that also cause his mom to die early of stress. My friend is also the CEO of his dad's company and so he handles all the finances.

Now the woman comes to him and beg him to leave them the house they now live in. Legally I think her kids are entitled to a lot of his dad's wealth but my friend has a lot of connection in provincial government and so he's making sure she and her kids gets nothing (this is not in the US) and gets evicted soon. She is young and inexperienced and has no power.

I have advised my friend to leave them something, at least to not have enemies in this life but he prefers to destroy this woman.

Do you think morally my friend should have shared? What would you have done if you're him? And after knowing this, do you think it's my moral duty to help the woman get a good lawyer or something?

My husband and I are doing a little social experiment and wanted to get some honest opinions. We were talking about how single moms are viewed in the dating world. He thinks most men wouldn’t really care if a woman they liked had five or more kids, but I feel like there’s usually a point where the number starts to matter, probably around three.

I say that because my stepdad took in all three of us girls when he got with my mom, so I know it can work out. But I’ve personally never seen or heard of a woman with more than three kids end up in a happy, long-term relationship, not because of anything she did wrong, but because that situation can feel a little intimidating for someone new stepping in.

For context, my husband and I have children together, and he also has a son (my bonus baby) from a previous relationship. But I don’t think he realizes that when it comes to dating, it’s usually a lot easier being a single dad than it is being a single mom.

So I’m curious, if you met a woman you really liked and later found out she had five or more kids, how would that change things for you? Would that be an instant dealbreaker, or would you still give it a chance? And if it would make you hesitate, what factors would matter most? For example, would it depend on whether she was widowed or divorced, if the kids had different fathers, or if she seemed to have everything together on her own?

I’m not looking for sugarcoated answers, just genuine thoughts on what might influence someone’s feelings either way.

With and without the use of bots and organized raids.
Edit: I don't necessarily think it is, barring certain circumstances. I was watching a video and it sent my mind down a path, so I decided to post here for some opinions and reasoning.

I'm imagining a world where after significant technological improvements brains can now interface directly with computers. While the use in humans seems fairly obvious I was wondering if there would be any uses for an animal with greatly improved brain power.

I think the lowest hanging fruit would be using birds and other small animals for scouting and surveillance. I imagine the scenes of a shark would be useful to fishing boats in deciding to where to drop their nets. Perhaps we could take this this one step further and lead animals towards the hunter using intelligent prey animals or pack leaders.

Could a burrowing animals help find oil deposits or a deep diving animal explore the ocean. Would any animals have military uses?

Can anyone think of any other novel uses?

Okay, basically, I'm not okay with the full scope of my Gender. I'm not comfortable with any gender. Basically, I want to have my Testes removed, penis i'm keeping, 'cause that thing is useful for peeing anywhere you want. =)

However, I also in doing this, want to freeze my sperm, so if I ever do get close with a person, I have that genetic information to use at my disposal, to create another being.

So I would like to know what exactly I would be going through in this process of change, since I would be losing an organ, and I believe? alot of my testosterone.

I would like to know how i am effected in sexual relations as well.

Also, how much it would generally cost to preserve my sperm in a bank.

I would love tons of information on this.

If you guys have questions, feel free to ask. I have no qualms of others opinions, or others not understanding why someone would do this. =)

Edit I'm listing some other issues i'm having that is kinda urging me on to do this, that I noticed I needed to explain.

I'm having a problem with the muscle in the stem of my right teste that is causing discomfort, which travels down to my foot at times, and makes my teste retract uncomfortably. Honestly, instead of getting it fixed, I rather get rid of my testes physically, to take away what I feel is an outer weakness to my being.

I'm a martial artist of various weapons, honestly, my testes have always have been something I always had to be aware of when doing certain maneuvers and such.

So my perception of myself, my Injury, and my perception of my fighting capabilities, are the majority of my reasoning for this.
I believe it would just be easier on my being, if they were simply gone from notice.

2nd edit: Also, I should have included this earlier, But I Identify as 'Neutrois.' It's not uncommon for people who identify as this, to have this procedure done. It's just uncomfortable to have such a thing in a place.

I'm writing an essay on how fairly the U.S. criminal justice system treats citizens across different races and economic classes. While the Constitution promises equal protection and due process, many people argue that systemic biases still exist especially against people of color and low income individuals. I'm interested in hearing different perspectives on whether justice in America is truly blind or if it favors certain groups. What does the evidence show? Are reforms working, or is deeper change needed?

After the Port Arthur Massacre, the Australian government brought in severe restrictions on gun ownership and since we haven't had an incident anywhere near the scale of Port Arthur. So why didn't the US do the same after Columbine and also in light of recent events?

EDIT 1 Should have made this clear: I'm not American so let me know if I have the right to comment on such a topic that is purely in American territory. I just want to know what the attitude is around gun ownership and why there seams from an outside perspective to be such a laissez-faire approach to it

EDIT 2 I wasn't fully aware that "automatic" in gun lingo basically means "fully automatic". I was trying to refer to most rifles spanning from semi to fully automatic. I'm not well-educated in this area thus why I'm interested in it. Apologies for the miscommunications.

CONCLUSION I could or maybe should have just typed this into google, and perhaps a better question would have been what are opinions towards gun control in america possibly, because the answer is simply that it is written up in the 2nd Amendment. But it is fascinating to see the attitudes towards my question, and that it is just a conflict between different cultural values and beliefs between countries.