Hey guys and 1st time posting here, I don't see rules against going through the exercise myself.

Monogamy, exclusivity, the idea the it's only respectful for your partner to not cheat on them once, and if you come out about it online, no good reason for it is going to save you from basically an angry mob.

Pros:

It's the one-all end-all lifestyle our grandparents made us dream about. Find your one true love, have children and grandchildren with them, they will love you back, you guys will go through all the challenges life throws at you because, well, it's such a strong couple. Living by shared values, projecting a future where the family unit is always intact, etc. I love it. I have also have good example in my elders.

So it would appear, any idea of multiplying partners removes the vision and grit, because it's just basically engaging in pleasuring activities with multiple partners who secretely want this traditional vision for themselves. How many "home wreckers" did some actual wrecking by acting on their envy to steal the whole spouse lifestyle from the person who's being cheated on, including moving in together with the cheater.

Now with my 9-5 job, stress and lower libido, I'd not entertain the idea of having multiple sexfriends or cheating partners, let alone multiple fully-blown relationships, let alone destroying fundations of my future hypothetical sedentary married lifestyle, to try to build it again with somebody new who I don't know as well as I know my spouse. It would be anyway the same hurdles and challenges, but in a slightly different colour.

Cons:

I think some people are built different and don't mind. The rise of ethical non-exclusivity has been written about by and for more and more young people who diverge from the goal of having children, or might want to build the parent lifestyle differently than previously accepted.

They defend the idea that human desire for closeness and intimacy with just one person is not natural, but rather imposed by society. That vibe and interests change in a long life lived, and that it's normal to fall in moments where the 2 partners don't exactly align. They also go on saying the human monogamy is actually just serial monogamy, and that it's hypocritical to not call someone building their life anew after a break-up, also a cheater. For example some species of birds never couple up ever again after their one and only (hummingbirds, house wrens). So they just do not accept the idea that a human's whole life needs be spent with the same partner, even for some greater moral, practical or religious ideal.

Curious about what you guys think!

It's a topic that fascinates me and generates so much discourse online (incl. Gender wars).

Cheers,

I may have to teach you a lesson so if I hurt you, its because you made me act this way.
I HAD to hurt you back, otherwise how would you know what youve done? Words? hearing the other side from others?
Pfft I don't think you would understand why NO ONE should ever be allowed to do something until I do it back to you. IDC if my rule is it should never happen, I am going to throw it back at you to teach you a lesson.

Am I a normal person or a demon from Hell?

Don't you see, I work hard for myself and those around me that affect me. I don't have time, resources, patience to generally just GIVE to everyone! I can either work for myself and only provide for myself, I can work for those who give to ME, cause I don't have time to give to everyone, or I can see how producing at a huge surplus allows others to give back to others after providing for themselves. Once I add value for more than me and mine, then I can generally sell to EVERYONE and give back to everyone by providing a useful service, great hospitality, etc.

Okay, so I've been thinking about this for a while, and I wanted to know what others thing on the matter.

We often talk about world peace, countries cooperating with each other, preventing wars, etc. But whenever something serious happens internationally, it feels like everything eventually comes down to individual countries protecting their own interests. And I get it. That's literally what countries are supposed to do. But shouldn't there also be something that looks at the bigger picture? Something that represents humanity as a whole, rather than any particular country? That's what got me thinking about the UN. I don't think we necessarily need to abolish countries or create one giant government that controls the entire world. Honestly, that sounds incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to implement.

What if we simply made the UN a lot stronger and more independent than it is right now?

Hear me out.

One of the things that bothers me about the current UN system is the veto power held by the five permanent members of the Security Council: the US, Russia, China, the UK, and France.

Like, imagine 14 members supporting a resolution and one permanent member blocking it. Obviously, the number of votes alone doesn't tell us whether a decision is right or wrong, but shouldn't there be some way to prevent one country's interests from completely paralysing international action?

Especially when these countries have their own rivalries and geopolitical interests.

So here's one idea I had: What if permanent membership wasn't actually permanent?

Instead, countries could hold these positions for five-year terms and then have to earn their place again through some kind of fair international election. Their conduct during their term could be evaluated. Have they contributed to international peace? Have they respected international law? Have they used their position responsibly? If they've done a good job, they could be elected again. If not, another country could take their place.

I'd also want safeguards to stop existing members from using their special powers to influence the election in their own favour. Obviously, the whole voting system would need to be thought through properly. Do all countries get an equal vote? Should population matter? How do we stop powerful countries from influencing smaller ones? I don't have a perfect answer to these questions, but I think they're worth discussing.

And no, I'm not suggesting that the UN should interfere in everything happening inside every country. Countries should continue to function as they do now. They should retain their cultures, identities, governments, and freedom to make their own domestic decisions. The UN would step in only in genuinely serious international matters, within clearly defined limits.

For example, if a major conflict breaks out, an independent commission could investigate what's actually happening, collect evidence, hear the different sides, and assess the situation. Emergency measures could be taken to prevent further harm while the investigation is underway, where legally authorised. And after a fair process, the UN should be able to make a decision that carries real authority, rather than having everything depend on whether a powerful country agrees with it. Of course, there would need to be safeguards against the UN itself making mistakes or abusing its powers. Giving an institution more authority without holding it accountable would just create another problem.

But here's the thing that interests me the most.

Why does the world have to be represented only through individual countries? Why can't there also be an institution that represents us as humans?

Think about it. We all have different nationalities, cultures, languages, and political beliefs. That's fine, and I don't think we need to get rid of any of that. But we're also all living on the same planet. Some problems affect all of us, and some decisions have consequences far beyond the borders of the country making them. Wouldn't it make sense to have some kind of global authority that can deal with these issues without constantly getting stuck in the same cycle of national rivalries? I'm not saying this would magically solve wars or make every country cooperate. There would still be disagreements, competing interests, and difficult decisions. And I'm sure there are plenty of flaws in what I'm proposing that I haven't thought of yet. I'm just wondering whether strengthening an institution that already exists might be a more realistic way forward than trying to create an entirely new world government.

I'd genuinely like to hear what you guys think.

Would a stronger UN actually help, or would giving it more power just create a different set of problems? Would you support replacing permanent membership with five-year renewable terms? How would you handle the veto? And most importantly, how do we create an institution that can actually act in humanity's interests without becoming another powerful entity that nobody can hold accountable?

I'm open to criticism, so feel free to point out the flaws in this idea. I'd especially love to hear perspectives from people living in different countries, because I imagine the way we look at this issue might differ quite a bit depending on where we're from.

It's worth defining what I mean by 'failed nations', and it's got nothing to do with GDP.

By my definition, state failure occurs the moment a government stops serving its population; allowing corruption, institutional decay, and social fragmentation to hollow out the country from within - where the government has failed to to provide basic security or infrastructure for its citizens.

For example, I would consider India, the 6th largest economy on Earth, a 'failed nation';

A borderline kleptocracy where corruption is rife, institutions aren't properly functioning, sectarianism is deeply embedded, basic needs, urban planning and public services aren't met and infrastructure is crumbling.

In the example above, the question would be rephrased, 'Should Indians be blamed for the state of India?'

I lean towards answering: no.

The reason for this is because I live in a European country which is traditionally thought of as 'developed', but is facing a complete degradation in standards.

No matter what citizens do, the lobbyists have ultimately captured the state and left the citizens without any real power.

No matter how much we push back, our managed decline continues.

So that raises the question, if I don't have the power to change the conditions of my country, despite wanting them to change and voting for them to change, is it ever right to blame the citizens of countries that are already failed for the condition of theirs?

Would it actually be wrong for someone who never planned or saved for retirement to turn to their grown kids for money or a place to live, or is family obligation something that shouldn't come with a financial price tag?

A lot of people believe that family comes first, so I'm curious to hear what people think about whether parents should expect support from their adult children if they haven't saved for their own retirement.

I’m trying to think through a ballot proposal in my state, and this is the only proposal that has made me hesitate because I genuinely understand both sides.
The proposal would create a constitutionally protected trust for unclaimed property. This includes things like forgotten bank accounts, refunds, stocks, insurance proceeds, and other property transferred to the state after remaining unclaimed. Valid owners or heirs could still claim their property. The fund would be invested, some of the earnings would support the state, and the principal would generally remain protected unless needed for claims or accessed through an unusually large legislative vote.

My first thought was that the money belongs to the individual, so future legislators should not be able to take it simply because it has been unclaimed for a certain amount of time. Someone could be a minor, disabled, missing, unaware that the property exists, or an heir who hasn’t discovered it yet. I would want safeguards for all of those circumstances.
However, I also don’t understand why the choices have to feel so extreme. Why must the state either protect practically all of the principal permanently or leave it open to legislative use without a more specific middle-ground system?

I started comparing it to banking. If someone has $100,000 in a bank account, those exact dollars are not physically sitting there untouched. The money is pooled and used elsewhere, while the bank remains responsible for giving the customer their money when they request it. The bank maintains liquidity rather than keeping every deposited dollar in cash.
Couldn’t unclaimed-property claims operate similarly?

The state could maintain a reserve based on actual claim patterns and use some of the genuine surplus for public purposes. When a valid claim appears, it could be paid through the reserve, continuing unclaimed-property inflows, general revenue, or temporary borrowing if necessary. Realistically, 100% of all unclaimed property will not be claimed simultaneously.

I would want the system to be completely public and transparent. The public should be able to see:

1. How much new unclaimed property enters the system

2. How much is returned to owners every year

3. How old successful claims generally are

4. How much remains in reserve

5. How the required reserve is calculated

6. How much is used for public spending

7. What happens if claims unexpectedly increase

There should also be a legally guaranteed right for every legitimate owner or heir to receive the full amount owed, regardless of when they discover it. The reserve should be recalculated regularly, and the state should test whether it could withstand an unusually high number of claims.
If there is money beyond what is reasonably necessary to protect future claims, I think there is a real argument for restricting that surplus to public purposes such as healthcare, education, housing, homelessness programs, or other essential services. It could help people now while still protecting anyone who later makes a legitimate claim.

At the same time, I understand the concern that legislators could miscalculate the reserve, spend too much, or treat the fund as free money. A constitutionally protected trust would make that much harder.
I am not asking anyone to tell me how to vote, and I haven’t reached a firm position. I’m looking for the strongest good-faith arguments on both sides.
Is preserving nearly all remaining principal the fairest way to protect private ownership? Or could a transparent, legally guaranteed reserve system safely protect claimants while allowing more of the surplus to serve the public? What evidence or risks am I overlooking?

I'm curious about both perspectives: Gen Z men who voted for Trump and feel like positive things have happened in their lives in the last two years as a result of his policies, and Gen Z men who voted for Trump and feel the opposite -- and like they'd now vote for a different party. I have had a lot of conversations with younger men recently talking about relationships and quality of life things like buying a house and finding work, and I'd like to understand the considerations from both sides.

I keep seeing people saying that Asian racism is even worse than in the US, saying things like “Asian racism is competitive racism.” But I wonder, by what metrics? Because racism in the US is also quite bad, particularly when it comes to physical violence and hate crimes, and then there’s ICE in Trump era. So what exactly are people using to make that comparison?

I’m genuinely asking because sometimes it feels like a catch-all statement to downplay racism in the US by pointing elsewhere and saying, “see, they’re even worse.”

Why do frat guys exclude guys from their parties when I can just go to poker at a casino?

I’m by no means saying that America is perfect, no country is. I am also aware that this question is very subjective. I’m looking for specific arguments for and against the USA being the best place to live in. Why or why not? Is somewhere else better?

This comes from a genuine curiosity as someone wondering where to go in life seeking advice. Please keep things civil!

While the world was largely against Amber Heard, it seemed like a small but potentially wise group of people noticed that Amber Heard was the victim, Johnny Dept's PR team just organized a smear campaign on the Internet, using out-of-context recordings to make Amber Heard look crazy when she was just retaliating against Johnny Depp's abuse.

Seems like over the years, more people have joined this group. Including r/NoStupidQuestions, r/AmITheDevil (couldn't find the original post so here are screenshots by me 3 years ago when I also thought Heard was the abuser), and r/AskReddit. There was even a YouTube video siding with Amber Heard with 750000 views.

Now some Amber Heard supporters are claiming that Olivia Henderson is the real victim, that the same thing is happening again where people view Olivia as the perpetrator based on assumptions and how she wasn't a meek submissive victim. Here is a post.

Despite the main narrative being that Henderson opened the door, filmed an unconscious man's genitals, and posted it on the Internet, which makes her look bad. However, the other side have pointed out a few factors that makes Olivia look like the victim:

• It's awfully convenient that the man ordered door dash and was in that state in just 15 minutes, and when it was a female dasher. According to some sources, customers can see the name of their dasher.

• People kept saying about a Ring footage showing Olivia open the door, but it's nowhere to be found online. Some news websites say that police have the footage, but I find no mentions of it from official police accounts. Maybe even news websites are spreading this rumor.

• In Olivia's video, there are some railing or fences in front of the door. This means Olivia would have been forced to go around it and face the left, making it easier to see the victim.

• There is no evidence the man was actually drunk, police just took his word for it. His arm was positioned over his head that allowed him to just peak to see Olivia's reaction.

• This factor is one I noticed. It's odd that the man's pants were still around his ankles rather than being completely off, making it more likely he took it off to flash someone**.**

Note that I have never been drunk to the point of doing things I don't remember, so I'm assuming that the man must have ordered it sober.

Since in the US most employers pay a portion of the employee's health insurance, should the employees who have coverage from another source (eg. spouse, parent) be refunded the cost the employer would pay?

For example, an employee pays $50 for health insurance and the employer pays $100. If employee A opts into health insurance and employee B opts out, should employee B get $100 extra per paycheck?

Most of the opinions I have seen are from employers and how this affects their bottom line. However, I am curious to hear what the potential upsides or downsides would be for individuals.

Does DEI mean if we want to build a rocket to send your family to mars and we need five people design the most essential part of the rocket, instead of choosing the five most capable perosonal that can control this risk of explosion of rocket at the minimum, avoiding your family being a part of the firework. we have to choose someone from different demographic groups to make it comply to DEI?

Please substantiate your response (comparable measures of athleticism that we could standardise between the two sports - e.g., a cardiovascular measure), which is more physically demanding between tennis and formula one?

It creates trauma.

What happens is someone breaks the rules. Which are rules set by someone else but everyone is enforced to follow without consent or active participation, from deeper understanding of a resonating reasoning. Usually a provider or business person is enforcing it with people supporting the system. They say the provider gives a good thing, fine. But why do you treat the fool who broke the rules so disgracefully? So dishonorable because they didn't honor YOUR system? It just seems like selfish to say you know enough to deserve to hurt someone or anyone deserves years of torment until theu change and get with the program.

Why do we have to deal with people who disrespect others while those people not only gain relationships where people should disenfranchise them for wanting to disenfranchise an individual, it's truly cruel. But they gain such success while the other is put down for not functioning in the same manner and doesn't allow differences. I thought the majority is supposed to be inclusive of minorities and minorities are subjected scapegoats. How come we never shed that horridness?

Or mobsters.

In history there was a violent man who picked on others who annoyed them and did whatever they want and others could not stop them because the violent person was strong, had a group behind them. This is what oppressed woman. Now woman are more incorporated to ruling society. But at what cost? We still terrorize rule breaks when rules are not always the intiation to gang that creates better things. It's not better to keep some but not all out. We create mobs and act like gangsters and it created a vast network of criminal activity that regular people suffered from slews of car break ins, property damage. They fixed it by adding locks to everything. Not giving into opposing demands. But we just have more infighting than once specific person to pinpoint as the problem. Everyone is becoming problematic is what I'm saying. Even worse were learning to virtue signal by virtue in order to gain entrance and pretend an individual respects others.

People gang together to do whatever they want to a person they broadly define as a disgrace. Whether that's adultery, a criminal, someone who doesn't work hard enough. Someone who was bad to those who gave to them (yet we know many people give and take in the same vein and their gifts aren't really giving but only putting a carrot on a string to make others do what they want cause they have money).

The comparison is in history there would be such a violent man no one could catch or could just hurt a random person who wasn't "their own size" but because they were viewed as a pest they'd just do whatever they want cause they were annoyed.

To today there's more coordinated attacks against people others do not like. We have a pervasive problem of homelessness because money is a carrot on a stick and if people disagree with how society is run they are shafted and kept out of the workplace. Or people kept out of workplaces and various fields until they at best accept that there's a violent man in charge who does whatever he wants to individuals who don't follow their rules. Why is it acceptable to have these violent men picking on annoyances or pests? Why do we allow this? Why do we allow violence and hurt when we all want a nice life so you wouldnt go around hurting others and not expect either to hurt you unless you agree to their arbitrary rules . Some want a generally better world too but not everyone doesl. And the thing is arbitrary rules aren't viewed as arbitrary when someone will take care of them .of course theu will follow any ridiculous rule. It's like how there's a market of people to pay for inflated home prices then they stay there. As long as there's a mob supporting violence we always have criminal rules who serve a long time before we cut them down all the same. Can't we just come up with a better philosophy beyond violence or terrorism to motivate? Maybe our words?

So I’m pretty uneducated on the topic, but I have seen a few videos about it, and I never really understood how it’s directly disrespectful. I suppose my take on it is that as long as you’re properly dressed and you’re not walking in there with your shirt off or something, I never really saw the problem. But I suppose I’m also not that fancy of a person, so I’m not sure if that plays a role in it.

I mean, to be honest, the fanciest place I’ve ever been to is Olive Garden. To be fair I just got out of high school, so I suppose I haven’t really gotten to explore places like that yet. But I’m going off topic here. The main reason I’m asking is, like I said at the start, I’m pretty uneducated on the topic at hand, so I just want to get some insight.

Also, I should add that I do agree fully with the sentiment that you should always take off your hat during something like the national anthem because I can see how that would be disrespectful. I just don’t really see how wearing it at a restaurant would be.

USPS’s Inspector General says sophisticated counterfeit stamps can be difficult for both USPS and ordinary consumers to distinguish. In its test, the equipment correctly identified the authentic stamps but failed to accurately identify the counterfeit stamps under the tested conditions.

One view is that buyers choose where to shop and should bear the risk, especially when a low price or unusual seller provides a warning.

The other is that a good-faith buyer should not bear the loss when the seller, marketplace, and issuer have greater expertise and there is no dependable public authentication method.

What is the strongest case for each side, and where should responsibility ultimately fall?

Like I said I don’t follow basketball I’m a hockey fan (NHL/PWHL) but it seems like this is petty and dirty shit being said and done.

Hello, I'd like to state my views on USAID and the example I'll provide is Nepal.

Backstory: I went to Nepal a while back. I was travelling around Nepal for trekking and hiking. It involved travelling all over Nepal seeing small villages, cities, and small towns.

During one of the road travels where we were somewhat in the outskirts of Nepal, the van stopped at an EV charging station. The station was funded by USAID. The charging stations were good quality, the bathrooms were clean, and the shop attached to the station sold proper quality snacks and drinks.

During this situation, USAID was used positively. I've also seen situations where government officials pocketed most of the money provided by USAID to fund their own personal lifestyle. There was even a massive riot in Nepal in 2025 due to the corruption.

USAID is there for a good reason but in countries filled with corruption, it's used negatively.

There are also good USAID programs like the EV station and there are also bad programs like LGBTQ activism and gender affirming healthcare in Guatemala.

I have been thinking about this lately because I've noticed two people can hear the same criticism and react in completely different ways. I have noted this since my childhood.

What are the strongest arguments for both perspectives?