I want to be clear. I am fairly uninformed in global issues, history, and politics. I also have a healthy distrust for the United states government and there involvement in foreign wars. My views are based on my natural response to whatever info I happened to receive. Would Ukraine have been better off negotiating and becoming part of Russia? Or would a powerful russia destroy the world? Give me ONLY nuanced opinions please.

Biden supporters say the right is refusing to pass a bill that would allow them to secure the southern border. Trump/right supports will say that don’t need a bill to do the job and the early executive orders by Biden lead to this. I need more details but that’s as much as I currently understand.

What are the arguments for

A. Increasing the responsibilities of the federal government, taking them away from the states

B. Turning over responsibilities of the federal goveenment to the states

When trying to understand the history of BLM, it strings all the way back to 2013, but it started resurfacing in 2020 during the George Floyd incident and this is mainly the period by which I am referring to in my title.

Following the George Floyd incident, there were many BLM protests that continued to spread and were a mix of peaceful and violent. I'm not exactly sure when the protests turned from peaceful to violent, but it seems to be linked to the Breonna Taylor incident.

(I feel like leading up to this point, most of the country was in support of BLM.)

Following violent protests, came the looters. After people started looting is when some people started to lose their support towards BLM. On the other hand, BLM supporters excused their actions by claiming a change was needed in the U.S. or by stating that the looters/violent protesters were a minority of extremists that didn't accurately represent the average BLM activist, as well as inaccurately representing BLM as a whole.

Also, people started to use the tag "ALM" as a counter to "BLM", saying that all lives matter, in comparison to just highlighting black lives. BLM supporters did not take this lightly, claiming that it was used to suppress BLM and that ALM was not a real movement, but rather a political statement.

Then, there was the Jacob Blake incident, and this was also brought to my attention as an NBA fan, as some of the teams boycotted games because of this.

The George Floyd incident was one of the biggest cases highlighted by BLM along with Breonna Taylor, Jacob Blake, and Rayshard Brooks. By "cases", I mean situations that involved a black man or woman dying to the hands of a white police officer in a controversial, as well as a possible racially-motivated situation.

(Police brutality/reform was one of the biggest motivators for the BLM movement.)

So I ask once more:

Was the BLM movement a good thing?

(post recycled from ELI5, it's "loaded topics" apparently. I'm too lazy to rewrite it, so please counterargue it, or defend "nice guys")

I'm not talking about a "nice guy" becoming a misogynist.

I'm talking about a guy claiming such things already being somewhat immoral.

I'd understand if they were bigoted against men, that's what they claim anyway. And that's how they wouldn't get caught.

But for some reason a lot of times they turn out to actually be assholes to women! And not sometime later, but actually during the time they are tweeting shit like "men are more violent than women, they are evil and shouldn't be in charge".

Please explain this to me.

Notable examples include Dobson, and that watermelon beard guy.

Also, do women hate "nice guys" because those "nice guys" are actually misogynists AND misandrists at the same time, or is it like that "human resources!" meme?

If I non-black person enjoy hip hop/rap and like to sing along, shouldn’t I be able to say the N word, since I’m not using it as a derogatory term but a word of endearment?

Helping the homeless: responsibility of society/politicians/rich people, or is the responsibility of the individual?

Gonna make the question as open-ended and vague as possible to facilitate LOTS of discussion. Thank you!!!!

Singing the song for how it is would be appreciating the music for what it was meant to be.

But it can be seen as bad to sing with swears or slurs.

Thoughts?

I am completely disturbed by this video. I do not think it’s justified he was charged with resisting without violence, so what gives the cop the right to punch him in his face over and over him. Also, once he is restrained, the cop elbows him in the face and not only that the cop in the back is hitting him in the baton on his legs while handcuffed. I’ve heard from many people this is justified, but I truly don’t think it is can someone please explain both sides to me! Please watch the video so you get the full idea! https://youtu.be/Ns4reV8Lo7M?si=A83jzmk4kfeKcMMV

pros and cons?

I’d like to know both sides of this, Side A saying he’s a dictator or becoming a dictator is annoying without any clarifications. I hear it be brought up in casual conversations of Trump. I don’t know why and I think it’s something about Project 2025, but I’d like to be explained about this situation. Side B would say that he isn’t at all attempting to become a dictator and it’s just some media stuff.

I’m pretty confused on this specific topic, as a busy college student with a lot on my plate I haven’t bothered to do research myself, but now it’s annoying. Please explain both sides

This is a discussion I'm increasingly interested in. At first I didn't care because I didn't think it would impact me but as time goes on I'm seeing that it's something that I should probably think about. The problem is that when trying to have any discussion about this it seems to me that it just relies on blindly accepting it to be true or being called a transphobe. Even when asking valid questions or bringing up things to consider it's often ignored. So please explain both sides A being that it's indoctirnation and B being that it's not

Explain both sides regarding the morality of creating deepfake porn of people you know for strictly personal use

I’m kind of leaning to Joe Biden because Trump started the insurrection on January 6th, 2021, mismanaged COVID-19, blocked the solution to climate change, ruined the relationship with Europe, and planned the Project 2025 to make himself a dictator by getting more power. But I also want to know what bad things these two guys did, and who’s worse.

I understand the worry about being hacked, ransomed or comned (etc.), online and in the real world, and it's a necessary worry tbf, but why do we allow ourselves to be scammed subliminally by things like gift cards?

For example. Money is a universally accepted currency that doesn't expire, but we exchange it for something of the same value attached with an expiration date and some terms and conditions. This makes no sense to me? Winning them does, but buying them to use instead of money, I just don't get it.

Please enlighten me.

Is it right to hospitalize people against their will if they are at serious risk for suicide?
I know a few arguments for both sides, but need to think through it more.

Can someone please explain to me both sides of squatter’s rights? Like what the role of them is in society and how one side would think they’re good and the other would think they’re bad.

I understand that both are likely true, but I wonder how stark supporters of either side defend the point

i'm an Australian who's noticed this in some cases, just from stupid videos on social media/talking to strangers online from the states.
I wonder how common it is for white people to use that word, particularly in a violent/aggressive manner. Why do some white/latin people use this word and what do black people think of this when it happens? To me as an Australian it just makes no sense at all.

ERP subs on reddit allow rape kinks, zoo (demihuman/furry) play, and other very taboo rp but age play has been uniquely singled out as off limits dispite being a relationship/sexual dynamic very firmly within the BDSM play. What are both sides of allowing or not allowing age play uniquely?

It just doesn’t make sense to me. He was not a good person. He had a relatively extensive criminal record, one of which was putting a gun to a pregnant woman’s belly. Certainly police brutality is bad, but at the same time Floyd should not have been the role model to choose.

There are plenty of cases where the person shot was much more innocent than Floyd, looking at someone like Tamir Rice. Floyd was not deserving of death, but he also was not an angel and not someone that should be looked up to.

Also, why did BLM wait until Floyd’s death to have the explosive reaction of protests and riots? Why wait until then instead of doing so at an earlier time, because Floyd was definitely not the first death to police brutality.

The traditional pronouns are he/she/they and serve the function of giving more information about the how the person using those than the subject being talked about views the gender of the subject. Pronouns exist only in the people around the subject about how the subject projects into the constellation of gender norms we find correlates to biological gender.

Within that framework how do neo pronouns work and how are they justified?

Here's a real scenario I experienced a while ago:

A 14 year old female entered the men's locker where there were 3-4 adult males (aged 20-60) showering and dressing. She was getting undressed and the men noticed it was a female due to having them having their chest taped. The men quickly threw on towels and left the bathroom coming to the front desk to explain what happened. In the system it showed the 14 year old female identified as a Man.

I recently saw in the news another situation where a male (who identified as a woman) was using the woman's locker room to shave while an adult woman and a child were in there. The lady says the child looked uncomfortable so she took a picture of the man shaving and brought it to the staff to complain resulting in her being kicked out.

So EBS if a person of a biological sex is uncomfortable with a transperson (of the opposite sex) sharing a private space, who gives up their comfort?

I know that I go to college/university for academic purposes. The primary reason for paying the tuition fee is to obtain a degree. However, I have always considered giving time to building friendships. Having friends ensures high morale, confidence, and enjoyment of life. Camaraderie, in other words, is a support system that allows you to feel great about yourself. You can avoid loneliness which can eat into your confidence. However, attending social events, a vehicle for meeting people, requires time commitment that could otherwise spent on studying. I care about the effects of time commitment on activities because it is important to consider, I only have a limited number of hours in a day. If I wake up today, I need it to count. As an Asian-American, I am under the impression that I must compete with others who look like me. If I don’t make the right decision, a job recruiter or potential friend could replace with someone else. I not ready to fail while someone else succeeds. I prioritize academics and school work or friendships or one main reason, return on investment. Having a degree and strong resume allows to become qualified for any position that I decide to apply to. However, if I spend time drinking and watching entertainment, what I get in return? A moment of euphoria (pun unintended), with someone who will probably never talked to me again. I have lost 5 friends so far at school even after I spent time be friendly to them and respecting their boundaries. My single room is just a reminder that friendships are meaningless. By contrast, I could break up someone and lose a friend but still have a job. I can hide the pain through money. I have considered study groups because they combine the joys of academics and social interaction, but I have not been able to find a group and some of these people will likely stay within their friend circles. What should I do?

Many sponsored products are either scams or ethically shady, but still get promoted on platforms like YouTube and TikTok.

One argument is that the content creator has an ethical duty to vet sponsors and reject any they can't vouch for.

Another argument is that creators can't possibly be an expert in every product category, and sometimes you just need to keep the lights on.

Platforms could easily ban the largest and most unethical sponsors, but they seem to be ignoring the problem. Scam companies that turn out to be actively dangerous or scams should probably fined into oblivion by law enforcement.

Who is most at fault here?

I tried sending this to nostupidquestions but they don't allow it, and asked me to go here.

Please read this in entirety before you comment. I am a white person, just saying this off the bat. The TikTok I am talking about, I don't actually remember, nor who commented. This was a while ago, and I am just now remembering it. I have already searched this subreddit and the Internet for answers and came up with nothing.

I saw a TikTok a while ago, where a black person was dressing up as a furry, in their fur suit. They were being stereotypically "cringey" and playing around and having fun. By the looks of it they seemed to be a teenager or young adult. I saw a comment below the video by another black person that read something like (not exact probably, again, this was a few months ago or more), "why are you in this white-person community".

Is it because we are not doing enough work to accept and honor people of color in our community, and there's a rampant racism issue? Or does it run much deeper? Why would they comment this?