After twice coming across posts saying that minors should not be allowed on Reddit I posted in a number of spaces defending our right to be here. I found myself arguing with various people saying that we should not and while I have to admit that some of them made some good points (particularly with regard to predators and inappropriate material) I still think that we should be allowed here.Am I right or am I just a stubborn child refusing to accept being wrong?I’m genuinely wondering about it.

I think the general consensus is that it was not, but I have heard people recently claim that Alcohol was a much much great problem at the time compared to what we think of as a problem today and drinking rates during and after Prohibition became noticeably lower.

Drugs need to pass rigorous trials to ensure that they are effective in what claim to do and aren't harmful.

Herbal supplements do not need to go through the same process in most countries. As long as they don't claim to be medicine and follow basic food safety rules, they can make vague claims like "improves concentration" or "helps with weight loss."

Some would argue that allows snake oil salesmen to thrive. Others would argue that scientific trials are far too expensive and supplements shouldn't be seen as medicine. Nobody expects Dole to prove that frozen peas are good for you.

Should supplements be regulated like medicine?

What are the most compelling arguments of pro and anti conscription? I think if you're part of a society you do have an obligation to protect that society if needed just like all your other societial obligations, but that can obviously be abused for offensive or "unjustified" wars. I also don't know how I feel about the government having to power to essentially requisition your whole life. So I'm personally torn on the matter

After being buried way too many times on other subreddits for saying something I would otherwise believe was either innocuous or funny, I had an idea: people who want to downvote a comment should be forced to justify the downvote.

This wouldn't be forcing them to each explain their own reasons for downvoting, but some functionality that recognizes that you've upvoted someone else's disagreeing reply to the comment. Only when you've either upvoted someone else's reply, or submitted a reply of your own, the downvote button is enabled. That way, the person being downvoted knows exactly where they went wrong with their comment, and can actually work towards a change, rather than having to go out of their way to embarass themselves by asking "what happened?" and then having that comment get downvoted 'for bitching about downvotes'. This site has a fundamentally flawed social system where users are more interested in purging hot takes, than actually helping someone not be dumb again.

I read a lot of political subs. For years, right leaning subs have been complaining that the whole MSM, with the exception of FOX I guess, is rigged against then. Now after the election, I am constantly seeing on left subs that a major reason Biden lost is because the right controls the media. I don't really get it.

Without knowing if they're harmless or a threat (let's say, hypothetically, they're within a few light years of us), why should or shouldn't we reach out? I would imagine it's possible by reaching out we risk being wiped out as a species, but the opposite could be true too if they end up being the lifeline we need to escape from Earth as it becomes uninhabitable with the expansion of the sun. I think it may also depend on a number of other factors like how advanced we are as a species by that point and if the message we make can be understood too.

Political values are very much shaped by one’s moral values, shaped by, in some cases, a very religious rather than a secular or humanist worldview. Can we ever ensure that legislation passed isn’t rooted in one religion’s view of the how the world "should be" in a country like the US where people vary so much in their values and beliefs? If so, how do we draw the line in a way most can agree to?

i really don’t know which is more important.. i think it’s friends… but can someone explain?

What would the argument be for and against this statement?

Please keep in mind that this post is not intended to debate who is right and who is wrong in the war, but rather if Israel’s strategy is effective. Policy effectiveness in other words.

Israel’s end-goal is to end hamas, and with the current trajectory it is on, it just wants to keep killing until hamas has fully collapsed. Here is the problem with this issue though: wouldn’t you be creating ADDITIONAL members of hamas for every person you kill? I’m sure any person would seek whatever means necessary to make you meet your end if you are the cause of their father or mother’s death regardless of if their mom or dad was a Hamas member or not. Does Israel’s strategy really reduce members of hamas? All it is doing is creating additional members in my opinion.

Thanks to all of you who are engaged with this subreddit and contributing to its content.

As the election approaches, this subreddit is being increasingly inundated with posts on (often repeated) several specific controversial topics (especially transgender equality, Israel/Palestine, US immigration, and the candidates, parties and policies related to the US election). Often, these posts are one-sided, which in turn generates lots of rule-breaking responses. In addition, a substantial influx of bot and troll activity has inundated these discussions with uncivil discussions, often long after the post has dropped from the top of feeds. (E.g. we are receiving lots of "appeals" of auto mod removals without even a presence that the comment actually followed the subreddit rules.)

This increasing activity is 1) overwhelming the mod team, 2) getting pretty redundant and 3) might be part of illicit efforts to affect the US election with faked public outrage on various topics.

Therefore, the mod team is considering making posting a fully-moderated activity. This would mean new posts will sit in a queue until being affirmatively approved by the moderators, rather than being immediately posted, and only removed if reported to/discovered by the moderators to be breaking rules after a robust discussion has started.

If we move forward with this change, it will last until the US election is decided, meaning at least until mid-November 2024, and possibly as late as January 2025. We hope that such moderation would limit new questions to only those that fully conform to the letter and spirit of the subreddit rules, thereby also making it clearer to new participants what the expectations are for the subreddit.

We welcome community discussion regarding this intention before we implement it.

So several of Trump’s cabinet members, advisors from his first term and other high ranking Republicans have now come out and said he is unfit to serve as president, refused to endorse him or even in some cases are supporting Harris: Pence, Bush Jr, Bill Barr, Elaine Chao, etc etc. How do his supporters reconcile this fact? Maybe with older figures like Bush Jr they could claim that they are part of the “swamp”, ie the entrenched political class that Trump is against. But what about the others that were hired by him and were part of his cabinet? I’m looking for intellectually honest answers, even if I don’t agree, not for a condemnation of his supporters.

With Trump mentioning tariffs so often and the left saying Trump doesn't know what tariffs do, how do they each effect corporations? If tariffs tax imported goods from other countries, that just increases the price that company charges, how would a federal tax not do the same thing, but also affect the employees that work for those companies? Long story short. Corporate taxes vs foreign tariffs?

There is a proposal to make the "neighborhood" I live in a protected historical district. In classic American fashion, I've seen a few yard signs in favor and a few against. I'm curious as to both sides of this - the benefits, the drawbacks, how this would affect the area in 5 years, 10 years, etc. For context, I live in a large southern metropolitan city. My neighborhood consists of mostly single family dwellings, some multifamily, several parks, and a handful of restaurants and small businesses mixed in (rare for a southern city lol).

I haven’t been able to wrap my head around this. I’m very young so I don’t remember much about Obama but I do remember our cars almost getting repossessed and we almost lost our house several times. I remember while the orange was in office, my mom’s small business was actually profitable. Now she’s in thousands of dollars of debt (poor financial decisions on her part is half of it so salt grains or whatever) but the prices of glass to put her products in tripled and fruits and sugar also went up. (We sold jam) I keep hearing how Biden is doing so good for the economy, but the price of everything doesn’t reflect that. WHO is the economy good for right now? I understand that our president is inheriting the previous presidents problems to clean up. Is this a result of Biden inheriting trumps mess? I just want to be able to afford a house one day.

I am getting tons of flak from my friends about my openness to support Kamala. Seriously, constant arguments that just inevitably end up at immigration and the economy. I have 0 understanding of what DT and KH have planned to improve our economy, and despite what they say the conversations always just boil down to “Dems don’t understand the economy, but Trump does.”

So how did their past policies influence the economy, and what do we have in store for the future should either win?

Scuttlebutt says that this is a terrible time to pursue acting, because the streaming services have made things terrible, leading to strikes, etc. I don’t understand the logic to this argument. Seems like so many more shows and movies are being produced all the time. What am I missing?

Do dems feel like you got duped into Harris as your candidate?

Recently saw a news post about a Transwoman Mridul Wadhwa ( CEO of a Scottish Rape Crisis Centre) who denied services to sexually-violated women when they asked to be seen only by a biological female for counselling. Apparently the post of CEO was only to be filled by a woman, but Wadhwa somehow got appointed. The This CEO also terminated an employee Roz Adams when she asked for guidance on how to respond to victims’ queries about the assigned counsellor’s gender.

When the terminated employee took the matter to court, the verdict delivered found the CEO grossly out of bounds.

Now trans activists are outraging over lack of inclusivity and rampant discrimination towards Trans community.

The other side - “gender critical” community argues that raped victims have a right to seek female only support.

I want to take an informed stance. I want to be as compassionate as possible, and form an opinion accordingly. What do you guys think?

I can see that we have the biological need to have offsprings to inherit our genes and our wealth or cultural values, but we are also rational beings. Why bring someone into existence if nothing has any meaning and he is going to die? And life itself is full of suffering and now we have climate changes and economical crises. Can you explain both sides of having or not having children?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlsen%E2%80%93Niemann_controversy

Explain both sides of the conflict. Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 and currently occupies 1/3 of the island

I noticed most people are strongly team Palestine, especially leftists. I am still looking for objective information "who's worse" in the war, since I know Israel commits genocide, but Palestine also holds hostages and attacked first. I have no opinion on the matter yet. Please explain both sides.