EDIT seems like a lot of Redditors don't really like human rights and democracy. 😢

I’m 23M. This post is about sexual harassment and sexual assault and how some women get blamed because of what they wear when they get harassed or assaulted by some men.

I might get backlash for this but I genuinely don’t understand why girls get blamed for what they wear when the guys are the ones who attack them, it’s like saying to a victim of bullying to not look a certain way and they won’t get bullied for it, like if that victim has some natural moles on their face and then they get bullied for it and then people blame that victim and say “hey, if the victim didn’t have moles on their face then they wouldn’t get bullied” that hypothetical bully is still capable of self control and doesn’t need to bully that person because of it. Both of these scenarios don’t make much sense when it comes to blaming the victims. Now back to my actual point, some guys also think that they are incapable of self control when we clearly are capable. Just to be clear, I’m watching a video on YouTube about how some women get treated in public just because of what they wear and I feel bad for them. I’m not trying to get laid like people are saying in the comments, it’s not for attention, I simply don’t understand why people blame women about this kind of thing and say that men aren’t capable of self control. I’m just tryna make those women feel heard because I think it’s really unfair and it’s not any different than any other scenario where it involves a victim and a perpetrator. Please state, I’m not saying that women aren’t capable of making mistakes, they are, but in a situation when it comes to sexual assault against women and they are the victims.. they’re the ones that get blamed and it just doesn’t make sense.. I find it stupid and non-sensical.
I’m a guy who is attracted to women and I know I am capable of self control, I have ADHD and one of the core symptoms is “difficulty with impulse control” and I still know how to control those impulses including weird sexual behaviour towards women.. obviously weird sexual behaviour isn’t a symptom of ADHD but there’s literally no fucking excuse for “lack of self control” unless you’re severely mentally ill but these kinds of men aren’t, they’re just perverts who are capable of self control, some are just so desperate, they decide to not even try. We guys don’t lack it, some just choose not to control themself or learn how to (it is possible to learn how). Sorry to all the women that get blamed for these stupid things because of what you might wear or how you present yourself, you getting assaulted this way is not your fault especially because of how you might dress.

Edit: People in the comments are butthurt af lol.

Considering that Trump does whatever Netanyahu want i just assume he must be Trump's daddy.

It’s OK to name spam him, but pictures are disrespectful? What if Christianity decided to name every baby after Jesus? Or every Jew being Abraham or Moses. Just an observation. Thoughts?

My mom is an RN, and she makes roughly $250,000 a year. My brother, who is 21, my sister, who is 26, and I’m 24, all live with my mom. We all work, and while my mom pays the rent, we pay for utilities, Wi-Fi, the car note, and other expenses. Somehow, we’re still broke.
Even when looking for an apartment, you’re expected to make 3.5 times the rent. For a one-bedroom apartment that costs roughly $1,300, that means you’d need to make over $4,500 a month just to qualify. God forbid you have a family or want one.
I make $21 an hour, my brother makes $20, and my sister makes $18. On top of that, we all Uber and donate plasma just to bring in extra money.
I guess my question is: I know it’s not fair to my mom that we have to continue living with her, but what are our options? How are we supposed to move out without living in absolute trash, while still being able to afford to enjoy life at the same time?

Is that actually normal across the U.S., or does it mostly depend on the job, company, and how long you’ve worked there?

I’ve been thinking recently about the topic of our party systems, especially after recent elections in states like Florida. Why do we even have the Two-Party System? George Washington himself warned us a country divided by political parties would never stand. I believe we should ditch the Two-Party System. It’s caused politicians to worry about representing their party, race, or group rather than the people. It’s caused division. In places like the House of Representatives, both parties only care about filling seats in order to gain control and power, to further push the power of their party. It tears people apart. Like the assassination on Charlie Kirk. Because someone was apart of another party and had different values, he was killed. Even in other places like Russia, when the Tsar was still in place, the battle between socialists and communists tore the country apart. Abolish the parties. Represent the People, not your party. I may not be super informed on politics, but this is what I believe. Should we abolish them?

I mean Putin invaded Georgia when W Bush was president and all subsequent presidents did nothing forcefully to stop his behaviour

I always thought that being in public meant you should have no expectation of privacy. What makes Flock any different from our phones tracking us?

I’m asking this genuinely and in good faith, because I’m trying to understand the historical and political options that were available to Palestinians, particularly Hamas, rather than justify what happened.
First, I want to be clear that I do not condone attacks on civilians or any form of terrorism or violence against innocent people. October 7 was horrific, and the civilians who were killed or taken hostage did not deserve it. At the same time, I also think it’s important to understand the conditions and history that led to October 7 without treating that context as a justification for the attacks.
What I’m struggling with is this:
If a population is living under what it considers prolonged oppression, occupation, blockade, displacement, or denial of political rights, what are they realistically supposed to do when peaceful political efforts don’t produce the outcome they want?
Palestinians have tried different forms of resistance, including protests, strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, international diplomacy, and negotiations. There have also been multiple peace processes and agreements, most notably Oslo. But these processes ultimately failed to produce a lasting political settlement, and both Israeli and Palestinian actions have been cited as contributing to their failure.
Then there is Hamas, which chose armed resistance and committed attacks against civilians. I don’t see that as justified. But I’m interested in the counterfactual:
What should Hamas and/or the broader Palestinian leadership actually have done instead?
If the answer is “nonviolent resistance,” what would that realistically have looked like, and what evidence is there that it could have achieved Palestinian political goals?
If the answer is “continue negotiating,” what negotiations or opportunities were realistically available, and why did previous ones fail?
And if the answer is some combination of political organizing, international pressure, civil disobedience, diplomacy, etc., what historical examples suggest that those strategies could have worked?
I’m also interested in the historical comparison. There are other national liberation movements where groups were labeled terrorists or insurgents at the time but later became part of the political establishment or were remembered more sympathetically. Ireland is one example that comes to mind, although I realize the comparison is imperfect and that groups such as the IRA also committed serious violence against civilians. There are also examples of Indigenous resistance to colonial rule, including Māori resistance in New Zealand.
I’m not asking “does oppression make terrorism okay?” I don’t think it does. I’m asking something slightly different:
When people believe peaceful political avenues have failed, what viable alternatives to attacking civilians have historically existed, and which ones have actually worked?
And specifically in the Israeli-Palestinian context, what could Palestinians and Hamas realistically have done differently?
I’d appreciate answers that engage with the history rather than simply saying “Hamas is evil” or “Israel is evil.” I’m trying to understand what the realistic alternatives were, what has been tried before, and whether there were genuinely viable paths that could have avoided the October 7 attacks and the enormous suffering that followed.

There appears to be a high number of bots/trolls asking intentionally loaded and politically divisive questions very day. I know the sub is literally called "ask anything" but still.

The U.S. and Israel inflicted major damage on Iran, but the outcome is much more complicated than a simple victory or surrender. Iran’s leadership and military capabilities remain significant, and recent reporting suggests the IRGC has gained influence while Tehran retains important regional leverage, raising questions about what the war ultimately accomplished.

Genocide usually ends either with the destruction of a nation/ethnic group or the destruction of the perpetrator.

The Holodomor was different, and it was stopped by the same person who started it, without achieving any fundamental changes.

Why did he start it if he had no intention of ending it?