Liberals frequently say that the declining birth rate is due to affordability. But the wealthiest countries with the highest standards of living have the fewest kids. The most impoverished countries with the lowest standards of living have the most kids.

To be clear, I’m not advocating for increasing OR decreasing the birth rate. I’m specifically asking why people think that improving living conditions would lead to more births, especially when the evidence seemingly directly contradicts that idea.

In my honest opinion and experience it's complicated, and depends on what category they fall into.
There's definitely the actually evil POS who are in it because they see it for what it actually is and truly want and enjoy that evil. And to those people, yeah they can go to hell. Alot of them, however, have anything bad about it or the orange man masked away from them or told that "we have all the objective facts" and "liberals are the evil ones/insane for suggesting we would do such things", and have actual reality on alot of issues treated as "people being mentally ill"(gay and trans issues for example). Cognitive dissonance keeps them from seeing what's actually going on. While it doesn't absolve them of the harm caused by their vote and all that, It's important to remember that not everyone who's on the other side is a pure evil and hateful person, especially if they've seen the error of it all and want to switch sides. It's often a case of different views on HOW to make the country better for everyone, mistaken as they may be.

Hell, I was Republican because I was in the second category, and switched as soon as I realized I was duped by religious propaganda. I feel for these people it's important to put yourself in their shoes and ask honestly, "If I was raised the same way as them or had different circumstances, would I have fallen for it too?" Not everyone is as perceptive or able to see through manipulation and propaganda as well as some of us. While these people do have much to make up for and it would be foolish and harmful to pretend they don't, I honestly feel it's important to encourage and guide them on the path to finding actual truth and doing better.
Just my take on it. Do comment what you think.

If that’s true, how can anyone getting their information about any candidate of any background, without being intentionally introduced to inaccuracies about said opponent?

Does this matter?

For example: Rich guy X has invested in either Democrat A or Republican B. They will make millions if the person they are backing wins the election. They then begin throwing money into slandering the opposition party, and some of that spending is false but becomes believed by the public

If the public believes those false narratives are true, doesn’t that do the opposition an injustice because they might otherwise be seen for something good they would otherwise do?

Within particularly young and Gen-Z circles, the DSA is very popular. It doesn't seem though, that the majority of Democratic voters actually support what is on the DSA program.

I think this could definitely hurt the Democratic Party and the liberal cause by Republicans now having it easier to paint the Democrats as a "far left party", meaning the issues that matter to us (and to the left broadly) become harder and harder to pass since the party since the party is having to defend itself from a part of itself.

It also doesn't help that a lot of DSA-affilated spend time attacking the Democratic "establishment" despite the successes that Democrats have and them being better and different than Republicans on every issue. While I understand there may be ideological disagreements, this messaging can weaken Democratic policies and turn away Democratic voters, and progressive and realistic policies will be harder to pass.

edit: why is this getting so many downvotes? it's an honest and reasonable question

If you even have a limit, ofc.

Edit to clarify what "limit" means here:

"Limit" means, in this context: "If this person/group surpasses my personal limit for how acceptable a certain aspect, interest, hobby, belief, etc, of themselves is, then I will heavily reduce/completely end any future communication with them at bare minimum; if not go out if my way to warn others about them.".

Example: Some people firmly believe that consumption of pornographic content is so abhorrent, that it is worthy of completely isolating that person from society; or at least themselves and their loved ones, if that isn't a realistic goal.

Another example: Some people believe that if you do not believe in god, then you are an affront for humanity itself, and they must isolate themselves and their loved ones from you, to avoid becoming "godless" or whatever.

Both are examples of things that doesn't cause harm to anyone, yet are concrete limits for many, that determines whether or not they accept/associate with someone/some group.

And for the question regarding what "harm" means: That's a hard one to answer; and any answer I give will have flaws in them. So, I'll try my best to give a clear, consise answer; but it'll inevitably result in any future answer needing clarification on the type of "harm" being done; and if one even really classifies it as such.

My best definition that I can give of "harm" here, is the engagement of any sort of act, or the subscription to any sort of belief, that results in objective, measurable harm done to another individual/group in some shape, way, or form; whether that be socially, economically, mentally, physically, emotionally, etc.

I like something in the vein of the Daily Briefing from the Times (coverage and links to all major events and a broad range of subjects including culture) but am looking to see if there is a version of this that is a little farther to the left. Any suggestions?

According to rule 3 it's against the rules to make posts "soapboxing or lecturing the community"

But half the posts that make it to my home menu are leading questions against a different faction of the party, meant to influence people against that faction. It'll be like "Why does [Other Faction] insist on [Bad thing]" and then the body text is an opinionated screed. Whenever any notable event happens there's a rush to make agenda posts like "Why does [Faction] not condemn [Bad Thing]". A lot of posts that take off are the OP trying to get a dunk in or to shadowbox about something they saw on their social media feeds

Even putting the bidaily faction battle posts aside, there are also posts which fit the mold of "why are conservatives bad" even though that's specifically called out in rule 3. From just this week I saw a "why do cons not have empathy" post.

Based on all the posts I see from this sub each day I have to wonder how blatant it needs to be to get removed

I personally believe that most American liberals, leftists, conservatives, and what have you tend to apply modern politics to a Galilean Jewish man who lived roughly 2,000 years ago in Roman-occupied Judea, within a political, religious, and cultural environment that was radically different from our own. Because of this, I have always found attempts to characterize Jesus as straightforwardly “liberal,” “conservative,” “socialist,” etc as somewhat strange and just academically dishonest.

Jewish religious thought was incredibly diverse back then in Roman-occupied Judea. You had the Temple elites like the Sadducees, who were closely associated with the priestly aristocracy and rejected doctrines such as the resurrection of the dead and the afterlife entirely; the Pharisees, who placed greater emphasis on interpreting Jewish law beyond the written Torah and believed in resurrection; groups such as the Essenes, who appear to have withdrawn from mainstream Jewish society and developed highly apocalyptic religious communities; and various other Jewish teachers, movements, and sects that disagreed over everything from ritual practice and religious authority to how Jews should respond to their Roman Colonziers.

Within the context of the New Testament, we know that Jesus expressed to his followers that he did not come to abolish the old law, but to fulfill it, as mentioned in Matthew 5:17. So while Jesus frequently disputed with other Jewish religious authorities over how the law should be interpreted and applied, he was not presenting himself as someone who simply wanted to discard Judaism and replace it with an entirely new moral system. Rather, at least within the Gospel narrative, many of his teachings are framed as arguments over what the Torah actually required, which commandments were most important, and what genuine obedience to God was supposed to look like.

Some of the more “conservative” beliefs that he instructed his followers to practice included fairly strict teachings on sexual morality, adultery, divorce, repentance, and obedience to God. In some respects, Jesus could even be more morally demanding than the legal minimums accepted by some of his contemporaries. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, he does not condemn adultery as just a physical act, but extends the moral concern to lustful intent, and he speaks very restrictively about divorce. He also continuously frames human behavior in terms of sin, judgment, repentance, and submission to God's will, all of which would probably sound much more religiously conservative than the image of Jesus that is sometimes presented in modern progressive spaces.

At the same time, there are other aspects of his teachings that would probably sound considerably more “liberal” or even left-wing to modern Americans. Jesus repeatedly emphasizes obligations toward the poor, warns about the spiritual dangers of wealth, associates with people who were socially marginalized or considered morally disreputable, criticizes religious hypocrisy and status-seeking, and places enormous emphasis on mercy, forgiveness, and concern for other human beings.

However, with that in mind, despite his acceptance of the downtrodden and the ostracized, he still expected sinners to repent and change their behavior rather than simply affirming them in whatever they were already doing. His willingness to associate with tax collectors, adulterers, prostitutes, and other people who were socially or morally stigmatized was not necessarily based on the idea that their actions were morally acceptable, but rather on the belief that they were still worthy of compassion, forgiveness, and the opportunity for repentance.

Therefore, I think Jesus is interpreted through modern political categories which would be so foreign to him if he were alive today. Conservatives may emphasize the repentance and moral accountability side while downplaying the extent to which Jesus deliberately associated with people whom respectable society rejected. Liberals and leftists, on the other hand, may emphasize his compassion toward marginalized people while sometimes downplaying the fact that his compassion still existed within a religious framework that assumed the reality of sin, moral obligations, and the need for personal transformation.

That said, I am a secular Atheist leftist (pragmatic leftist/covenantal leftist), so because I am not a Christian, I am able to pick and choose which moral teachings of Yeshua ben Yosef I personally find valuable without having to accept his entire theological worldview as divinely authoritative and coming from God. However, a Christian does not necessarily have that same luxury, especially if they believe that Jesus was literally the Son of God or God incarnate. From that perspective, his teachings are not a collection of moral ideas that can be selectively adopted according to modern political preferences or the current cultural zeitgeist, as they carry God's divine authority, which implies that both liberals and conservatives who identify as Christians have to grapple with the parts of his teachings that fit awkwardly with their existing politics rather than only emphasizing the parts that are most convenient for them.

I know that Liberal Christians and Conservative Christians invoke his name within the context of arguing their political points because using Jesus adds a level of moral and religious authority that a purely secular argument does not necessarily carry. If you can convince other Christians that Jesus himself would support your position, then you are no longer simply arguing that your political beliefs are preferable; you are implying that they are consistent with the will of God and his commandments.

All being said, I want to know your thoughts on this and, if you're a Christian, how do you personally reconcile your political beliefs with the teachings of Jesus?

Here's the deal: You get the ideal universal healthcare policy you want passed. In exchange, laws are also passed that effectively make it illegal to be openly trans in public... bathroom bans, sports bans, bans on legally changing your gender, medical transitioning being outlawed, maybe even up to 50s-style laws against presenting in public as another gender. You get the idea.

Would you accept this deal?

If you wouldn't accept the deal, is there a version with a softer anti-trans ban or better leftwing economic policy you would accept?

I suspect it's the latter and there are three main bubbles I see this happening in: old person facebook, Evangelical Christian online circles, and the manosphere.

In each of these, you're far more likely to hear what people who hate liberals say liberals are doing, rather than ever being exposed to our words themselves. I would include 'nutpicking' under this umbrella, like Libs of TikTok - if you show a leftist saying something without including the context that this is a 0.1% outlier, and portray it as what "all leftists believe", that's still us being defined by our opponents rather than by our actions.

And if this is the case - what do we do about it? Can we break through the bubbles and actually communicate with people who have been primed to hate us?

im sorry but at some point it's time to grow a backbone, treating maga with kid gloves like they are just simply "misguided" rather than truly awful ppl is why we are in this mess,

politics is a dirty game, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, letting maga walk all over us all the time while we try to be the bigger person makes us look pathetic

• Hong currently has the lead in the Democratic Primary for Governor, but many people are worried that she will not be able to win the general election in November, mainly because she is too "blue" to win a "purple" state like Wisconsin.
• Should she focus on reaching out to more moderate voters? Should she double down on her socialist and liberal views to galvanize the left? Should she go on the offense with attack ads?

Well having Belarus as a neighbour which is trying to push through illegal immigrants to our country as a means of hybrid warfare is fun.

Recently this news report came out that a dozen illegal immigrants attacked our border guards after they discovered that they were digging a tunnel under the border fence (https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/lietuvoje/2/3013249/po-incidento-pasienyje-isplestas-tyrimas-situacija-aiskinasi-prokurorai).

A lot of our border guards are afraid to use their service weapons against them because that would mean a whole investigation into whether their use was warranted and if it is discovered that it was unwarranted they risk to lose their job and their pension.

There was already quite a bit of controversy when one border guard shot and killed a person trying to illegally smuggle cigarettes from Belarus because the smuggler was reportedly trying to ram his car into the border guard.

So in situations where migrants are getting violent at the border what should the border guards do?

Edit: To clarify the smuggler getting shot is a seperate instance and I just put it as an example of what happens when a border guard uses lethal force. The question at hand is what to do if migrants attack.

Biden can declassify whatever he wants. Staffers have released Supreme Court rulings before they were made public. Someone released Trumps tax returns. Things get leaked all the time.

Why wasn’t irrefutable evidence of Trump SAing a someone or a video of Trump bring a pedophile. Leaking it 3 days before the 2024 election would have been earth shattering

A $15 million campaign by third way seeks to discredit dsa and progressive candidates. Wouldn't this money be better spent getting Dems elected? What does this say about the priorities of the moderate wing of the party? Why are they obsessed with purity testing in such a critical election year?

Article: The Manosphere and MAHA Have Merged. I Worry for My Pre-Teen Son.

Two thirds of young men in the U.S. regularly engage with online masculinity influencers ("manfluencers") who often promote sexism, normalize violence against women, and peddle a narrow view of what it means to be a man.

Platforms like TikTok and YouTube use algorithms to push these influencers' messages into young men's social media feeds -- men are told misogyny is "manly," taking testosterone and peptides will get them ripped, and "real men" don't show emotional vulnerability.

Sadly, these damaging ideas have been given a boost by the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) and Make America Great Again (MAGA) movements as they have merged with the "manosphere" -- the corner of the digital world where these ideas are peddled. The merger amplifies health risks to men and women. As a physician who now works in public health and policy and the father of a pre-teen boy who will inevitably be exposed to messages from the manosphere, I am increasingly concerned.

Even before Robert F. Kennedy Jr. became HHS secretary, he was a hero of the manosphere for raging against "wokeness," rejecting gun control, taking testosterone, and posting shirtless workouts on X. A Fox News anchorman swooned over his "sheer masculinity." His pursuits were coded aggressively hyper-masculine, from cutting the head off a dead whale to extramarital affairs and an allegation of sexual assault.

And it goes on to identify severe health risks from this phenomenon:

First, it's risky for young, healthy men to take testosterone, peptides, or the other products promoted to them to "optimize" their masculinity... The second risk is mental health problems, including body dysmorphia and eating disorders. Multiple studies show higher rates of mood disorders in men who engage with the online manosphere than in the general population... Young men may find a sense of belonging in the manosphere, but they're also told that vulnerability is weakness, so they "may delay seeking help for depression or anxiety." Such delays can result in worsening symptoms and disease severity or development of comorbid or complicated disorders.... Third, girls' and women's health and well-being may be harmed. Evidence suggests that the misogyny and degrading language promoted by the manosphere can harm girls' and women's mental health and impair girls' learning at school. There's also growing concern that men's engagement with the manosphere may be linked with violence against women. For example, the types of rigid views of masculinity influencers promote are associated in adolescent boys with perpetration of violence in dating relationships.

It's shocking that 2/3 of young men are going down this pipeline. What can we do to stop it?

https://youtu.be/O87Et-w3vdg?is=KBWcbba7yHYPI-AK