It seems like such an obvious quality of life update. Reddit supports it, so does every forum ever made.
On the other hand, Twitter has become the official record of several public figures and corporations. Edits would allow them to take back dumb comments in a way that people may not notice.
I often hear on Reddit that boomers are the reason for many problems in America but tbh I feel like they could just be an easy scapegoat since they’re older and have different worldviews from the typical Reddit user. But I genuinely do want to hear a well thought out analysis of of both sides of the story though
Sick & swole or healthy & not swole?
What are the pros and cons of passing this piece of legislation?
Pervasive being the operative word, not fringe outlier beliefs. I’m talking popular issues that our representatives have known positions on.
I’m often told it’s just as easy to fall down the liberal rabbit hole as it is to become “radicalized” by conservative beliefs. My Canadian friend likes to wax political about this all the time but I’ve seen some of my American peers sharing similar sentiments.
From my perspective, it feels like conservative beliefs are rife with very popular yet outdated and dangerous concepts. Examples being the need for guns to overthrow tyranny (leading to more accidental deaths and mass shooting events than any tyrant-overthrowing), or the concept that abortion is murder/Planned Parenthood profits from abortion.
Where are the equally harmful liberal ideals? If anything, I feel like the worst part about liberals is how little that actually get done. They’ll paint Black Lives Matter on a street but won’t meaningfully change anyones lives.
Is there something super obvious I’m missing, or am I just being unfair claiming conservative ideologies are harmful?
I mean yeah it feels weird that the trans women beat those other women at swimming, but to be real it’s not like she killed 21 people at a school with her penis.
Suppose Canada became a Republic in the future by abolishing the monarchy. Compare Canada's Parliamentary system to the American presidential system. They have many similarities.
-Federal (3 levels)
-3 branches (exec, legislative, judicial)
There still would be some differences. What would they be? And what would be better political system ? Future Canada or Future USA?
I mean I refuse to believe it's as simple as RUSSIA BAD UKRAINE INNOCENT
I'm not here saying Russia isn't bad, (after all they did launch an invasion) but I'm sure there is SOMETHING that explains their actions
If a child can be aborted by the mother, then should a father be allowed to abandon the child?
If it’s wrong for the father to abandon the child, then isn’t it possible that they’re both wrong?
For context, Channel 4 is a UK Broadcaster that was created in 1982 under the Broadcasting Act of 1980, alongside its Welsh counterpart S4C. It’s a statutory corporation meaning it was made by Statute, and is the 3rd company to be made to be a free-to-air broadcaster for the UK, and runs the obvious Channel 4. Channels 1 and 2 are operated by the BBC being BBC 1 and 2 respectively, Channel 3 is ITV, with its Scottish counterpart being STV, and Channel 5, which was created in 1997, is run by Paramount Global
Channel 4 is a non-profit, publicly-owned, advertiser-funded broadcaster run by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, and Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries has said that the Conservative Party plans to privatise the company by 2023. Obviously, this has led to backlash, even from within the Conservative party, and Channel 4 CEO Alex Mahon has said that Channel 4’s future is in continued public ownership
I’m one of the people against the privatisation of Channel 4, so I want to know both sides of why Channel 4, should or shouldn’t be privatised
Why is it normalized to call men insecure or immature when their partner has a very noticeable celebrity crush, but then are also seen like shitty guys just for following girls on instagram or watching p*rn, even when they’re not going to cheat?
There’s a big morale question posed in Moon Knight: is it morale to kill someone before they have committed their crime? I see two parts of this argument. First, is the crime worthy of death, and second, is is morale to kill before or after the crime has occurred.
I'm personally pro-choice, but quite frustrated at the state of discourse surrounding this topic. Both sides seem to frequently misrepresent each other, not even trying to understand where the other side is coming from.
Pro-choicers claiming that pro-lifers are against a woman doing what they want with their bodies, when the pro-lifers that I've spoken to aren't concerned with a woman doing what they want to their body, they are concerned about they baby inside of them. Conversely you have pro-lifers accusing the pro-choicers of being okay with murdering babies, when the pro-choice perspective clearly doesn't doesn't consider an unborn baby to be a life.
I just want to hear the best argument from either side without the vitriol and intentional mischaracterization of the opposing view.
Wasn't blockchain and bitcoin were made to keep ur account private and that no central authority could control it? Then what's the difference between real and digital currencies like bitcoin if it can controlled and taxed too
To be very clear I'm not asking for moral opinions on abortion, rather I would like to hear the legal justifications for and against Roe v Wade
Obviously the public debate about Roe v Wade boils down to "should abortion be legal or not" but I'm more interested in the specifics of the legal debate on the decision and whether the right to privacy does indeed mean a right to abortion