I was told to put my question here. There are multiple incidents recently that make me ask this question:

1. A few weeks ago there was a lawsuit from a few immigrants against Japan police force, accused them of discrimination due to them allegedly racial profiling people with darker skin (link: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/podcast/2024/03/08/deep-dive/racial-profiling/#:~:text=Three%20residents%20with%20foreign%20roots,target%20visible%20minorities%20with%20searches.). It was brought by an African-American man who lives in Japan.
2. Last Wednesday there was a Chinese film released domestically, but some screenshots from that film shows actors with black face. From what is reported, they were acting as international police disguised themselves as local to avoid detection to rescue hostage. It got a lot of backlashes on Twitter, people are trying to cancel the actors (even though it is not even showing outside of China)
3. Today, CNN reported that Biden complained about Japan, China, India for being "xenophobic", not welcoming immigrants.

Here is my point of view:

1. Asian countries, especially East Asia, has never been a multicultural society, so it never experiences the same issues that the West had with racial discrimination. Therefore, they don't see "stop and frisks" or blackface as an issue, or at least not at the level that the West saw it.
2. Asian ideology is much closer to traditional conservative ideology (family-value, pull yourself up by the boots-strap kind of thing). A lot of their views on immigration are also similar (unwelcome, prefer strict immigration law or close border).
3. People in Asia, don't consume Western media so the majority will not be awared of the requirements and changes that were made due to racial discrimination.

Based on thoses points, I think that it would be unfair to judge something, or trying to cancel people, or calling countries xenophobic based on how and what Westerners are doing, but I want to ask what your opinions on this is.

I understand some will choose bear when the other option is a fully grown man, but what about a 15 year old?

I was reading threads discussing what Africans thought of black panther and some responses said that the accents weren't really accurate, while others said that the black actors ability to play the character should matter more than if the actors is of the same race or ethnicity as the characters. This can apply to white American actors playing European characters or Asian and Latino roles being seen as interchangeable.

I wanted to hear both sides of this debate to try and get a better understanding of it and if it's a serious issue.

Obviously war is unavoidable I'd say I don't think war is a good thing but to say no war ever is ignorance.

So explain both sides reddit !

There are a lot of ways to pose this question. Should Bytedance be forced to sell Tiktok? Is TikTok a threat to national security? Does this forced sale violate the rights of American users, or is it justified?

About a month ago, this sub introduced rules that top-level replies must contain the phrases “Side A would say” and “Side B would say”.

Now that we’ve had time to see this new rule in practice, I’m curious what people think of it? Would love to hear both sides (naturally), but also which side you personally fall into.

Its still incest, the power dynamic issues still exist. There is no reaon i can see. What are the arguments for and against it.

What I'm looking for is an explanation of both sides of the claims of the following video clip which elaborates the net worth of the past 6 presidents.

https://youtube.com/shorts/R3F_CAGibJg?si=Mdd3hBJ4M5r3jADh

​

As the video claims, Donald Trumps net worth dropped while being president while the last 6 presidents value dramatically increased, many cases by impossible (without corruption) amounts.

Can anyone explain both sides by stating why this is the case or why it isn't the case (by possibly being misrepresented)

Hi! I'm 21 y.o Russian, that is keen on European and USA political situation. l've been checking out comments, opinions and people's views recently, and i notice that radical right and left ideas are gaining in popularity. To my mind, it's because of LGBTQ+, woke culture and etc. All this stuff like «Save Europe» and etc. makes me think, that people are tired of all that. My question: As European or American, do you support woke culture, and whats your opinion on Right ideas and Left? What political idea would be more preferable for your country / continent and why? What ideas do you support?

It’s a good day to learn

I've been a practicing pagan for about twenty years, and for the most part, the eclectic and various sources of knowledge available in this sphere is more or less open to all, both participants and spectators.

I understand how, in general terms, picking apart a religious or cultural group's practices to use as ingredients for your own can be considered appropriation when you're talking about a closed practice. Should you say that the way you worship, for example, requires a sari, an indian war bonnet, and a rosery, and your answer to why is, "shrug I think they look good together," then you're more than likely stepping on someones cultural toes. Obviously this is even more egregious when you're playing this mix-and-match game with a closed practice. I'd argue it reads as offensive even to practitioners of open religions, but the cultural significance and history of most closed practices make this approach much more severe.

But I can't say I've heard much about where the line is with adopting rituals or practices in their complete form, for the same intent, and handled the same or as close to the same as humanely possible. For example, genetically and culturally I'm a prodominately German and Irish American, and so there's no direct cultural ties for me to the maori war dance. But, after research and ideally some communication with actual practitioners and tribesmen, should I choose to engage in such a ritual for the same purpose utilizing the same steps, under the same types of circumstances, as a German Irish American, would I be appropriating the war dance?

The answer here feels like a "no." It feels like the difference, to me, between cultural theft and cultural participation. And if I am correct in that assessment, it brings me to my bigger question: is it appropriation to seek out with the intent of faithful and honest practice the details and rituals of closed circles? Where does the realms of comparative religious study and the desire to craft the most accurate practice and ritual end and the realms of culture theft begin?

Realistically, I ask most primarily in regards to indigenous ritual practice such as the native Americans, as well as closed mystery schools like study of the kabala. One of the things I've learned in the past twenty years is that ritual, regardless of cultural backgrounds, resembles ritual in vastly more ways than it doesn't. Drawing down the moon, binding / banishing work, seidr rights, Catholic mass, etc... all rely on concepts like the link between nature / divinity and mortals, make use of symbolic and often performative tools and procedures, evoke a liminal ritual space during practice, and connect adherents to their god(s), their community, and themselves.

I am of the opinion that a deeper understanding of where these ritual practices both align and differ from my current body of knowledge would be both fascinating and invaluable, and would cater not only to a deeper understanding for me, but also to a deeper respect for the cultures in question. But I've only ever been called a culture vulture for asking in the most directly appropriate subs. I welcome any and all insight.

From my limited knowledge:

Side A would say that "gay" refers to which sex one is attracted to. Someone is born gay, but they aren't born with any concept of gender

Side B would say "gay" refers to the gender one is attracted to. Calling it a gay relationship would mean that you see the woman as a man and not their gender identity.

Is there more than that?

So, recently I asked about how to deal with neck pain after smoke diving.

Someone noted that I probably wore my gear not correctly (which is entirely possible, my training is over a decade ago) and I thanked them for pointing out how to wear it correctly.

Another person just chimed in to say:

"You should have learned how to wear your gear correctly during training (surprised emoji)"

I found that to be quite rude and referred to the fact I learned it 12 years ago and was foggy on the details, which earned me the response:

"12 years ago we already valued this knowledge (ape closing eyes emoji) but who knows, maybe your instructor did not value it (shrugging emoji)"

I personally found both of these interactions very rude, but apparently people disagreed and downvoted me when I pointed it out and even asked "What is rude about that?"

So am I reading too much into this or are these people just not aware of their rudeness?

Genuinely can't grasp why politicians don't just...let women choose?

I’ve heard that a lot of people are upset since this would take money that could go to public schools and putting them into private schools. I’ve even heard some people say they are doing this so they can promote people going to religious schools.

The only other side I’ve heard is it would give more people freedom to choose their school and would allow more kids to access education.

If anyone else has any perspective on this I would love to hear it

I have a debate in a bit with the motion saying "this house regrets the widespread belief that motherhood is a rewarding experience".

Saying that motherhood is a state where women become mothers, bear a child, etc.

In my opinion, this topic is a bit one-sided especially in the current or newer generations. I'm struggling a little with searching, finding arguments.

If anyone could add bit by bit to my knowledge, that would be much appreciated. Why or why not is motherhood a rewarding experience and what cases could be used to represent the arguments?

preface I understand a woman has control over her body- thats not my question

Side 1: if a woman gets pregnant she can choose to keep the baby or get an abortion, this is generally considered (or should be) as her choice, and it’s seen as wrong for others to judge for it

Side 2: If a man doesn’t want a baby but the women has it anyways and he leaves, he is looked down upon as a bad man or made to pay child support. If he wants the baby and the woman has an abortion, he has no agency.

Why?

I ask this question because I’ve read enough history to know war brings out the worst in humans. Even when fighting for the right things we see bad people use it as an excuse to do evil things.

But even looking at the history in the last hundred years, there’s been multiple wars, coalitions, terrorism and political influencers on this specific war that paint both sides in a pretty poor light.

More than a few times in this subreddit I've been "reprimanded" for telling someone to fuck off or the like. Which is fine, I get it. Some subs would rather people not fling curse words around.

But I also notice that nothing that led up to the flinging of said words is reprimanded. Someone doubling down on a racist trope? Whatever. I tell that person to fuck off? DO NOT DO THAT!

So, I'm curious as to what 'both sides' of this reasoning may be.

My hunch is, at least one side is "we Americans live in a society where normalizing bigoted ideas is now considered part of 'civil discourse' but our pearl-clutching, puritanism roots still leaves us shocked when an f-bomb is dropped."

If anyone from my class sees this, I’m simply curious as to what the internet has to say.

Like, I don't understand why my ideas for cold-blooded dragons are largely ignored. Can someone explain?

So, is it really a big deal? I just do it when I'm stressed then feel bad later because it leaves scars, but is it really as big of a deal as people make it out to be? I don't use a knife or anything, I just score the sharp corner of my nail over and over and over again on the back of my hand or wrist. But people act like I need to go to a mental facility for just harming myself? It will heal eventually so I do not see why people think it is a big deal.

The noun “virgin” is defined by Merriam Webster as such: “a person who has not had sexual intercourse”.

Some, however, argue that the term “virginity” does not have a fixed definition; that virginity isn’t a fact but more of an opinion.

Explain both sides.

Merriam-Webster defines healthcare as: efforts made to maintain, restore, or promote someone's physical, mental, or emotional well-being especially when performed by trained and licensed professionals.

They define abortion as: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.

The arguments I've seen for Side A are that the fetus is a parasite and removing it from the womb is healthcare, or an abortion improves the well-being of the mother.

The arguments I've seen for Side B are that the baby is murdered, not being treated, so it does not qualify as healthcare.

Is it just a matter of perspective (i.e. from the mother's perspective it is healthcare, but from the unborn child's perspective it is murder)?

Note: I'm only looking at the terms used to describe abortion, and how Side A terms it "healthcare" and Side B terms it "murder"

Or should the passengers lives be priority n1?

I want to hear it all - give me your best arguments for both sides :)

Any feedback appreciated.

Really trying hard for a good-faith interpretation of Judge Cannon’s rulings (in the classified documents / Trump case) that does not involve her being incompetent or intentionally tipping the scales towards Trump. Is there any such explanation? Everything I read from a legal POV makes it seem extremely clear that these are egregiously wrong decisions, and it’s hard to come up with an explanation that doesn’t involve her being corrupt.

But I want to know if that argument could even be made?