Polls: Society & Politics

Hear me out on this one, as it is about gender equality, western mindset and when your heavy set start to feel like they're in a bra zoo whilst men are free to walk around topless.

Several indigenous communities around the world maintain cultural traditions where women go topless as a normal, non-sexualized part of daily life. Prominent examples include the Himba and Koma in Africa, the Yanomami and Zo'é in South America, and the Dani and Korowai in West Papua.

The question of whether it is fair for transgender women to compete in female sport categories is one of the most debated issues in modern athletics. It sits at the intersection of science, ethics, and social justice, and sparks passionate arguments on both sides. On one hand, advocates for inclusion argue that sport should reflect values of equality and respect. They emphasize that transgender women are women, and excluding them from female categories denies their identity and perpetuates discrimination. Supporters also point out that many sports bodies already require hormone therapy and testosterone suppression, which they believe levels the playing field. For them, the issue is about human rights and ensuring that everyone has access to the benefits of sport — competition, community, and recognition. On the other hand, critics raise concerns about fairness and biological advantage. They argue that male puberty can confer lasting physical benefits — such as bone density, muscle mass, and cardiovascular capacity — that hormone therapy cannot fully reverse. From this perspective, allowing transgender women to compete in female categories risks undermining the integrity of women’s sport, potentially discouraging cisgender women from participating if they feel the competition is unequal.
Sports organizations worldwide are struggling to balance these competing values. Some, like the International Olympic Committee, have shifted toward more flexible frameworks, leaving decisions to individual federations. Others, such as World Athletics, have imposed stricter bans on transgender women in elite female categories. This patchwork of policies reflects the difficulty of reconciling scientific uncertainty with ethical imperatives. Ultimately, the debate forces us to ask: should sport prioritize inclusion even if fairness is questioned, or prioritize fairness even if it excludes some athletes?

A professor once told us that an academic acquaintance of his wasn't admitted to Harvard because he referred to his children as a son and a daughter. According to what he was told, that was considered "assigning a gender," and even parents supposedly had no right to do that.

This, and ideas like it, are what are being taught at your universities. The people who graduate from these institutions often see themselves as enlightened and "woke," while looking down on ordinary people as ignorant.

If compulsory primary education is the nation-state's form of indoctrination, then universities are the indoctrination institutions of globalist elites

Every country has its own concept of nationhood, so I won't get into that. But one defining feature of a nation is that people can stand together for a common cause—such as supporting their country in the World Cup—even with people they might otherwise dislike.

For example, there are around 30 million Americans of Irish descent, while the population of the Republic of Ireland is only about 6 million. Do you feel closer to your ethnic kin living across the ocean, or to your fellow citizens in the New World?

For a Black American, this could mean Nigeria; for someone of German ancestry, Germany; and so on.

Hypothetically, suppose the DSA achieved its full agenda: nationwide universal healthcare, abolition of the Senate, replacement of the President and Supreme Court with bodies chosen by and subordinate to Congress, and a rewritten constitution establishing a democratic socialist republic.

That would mean replacing America’s existing separation of powers and checks-and-balances structure with a fundamentally different political system. Would universal healthcare make that trade worthwhile?

I know my answer: absolutely not.

Trump is selling insider info for $100,000, so people can make money on stock trades. For $100,000 , he will send you his truth Social post first and tell you what he plans to do before anyone else, So you can make trades and make money. Clearly illegal and impeachable.

I hope this will hammer the truth into some hard heads.

46% of USA leans right and 45% leans left. Each thinks that the other side is brainwashed.

If the other side is mind controlled, then you must agree that 45% of the people are traumatized.

Then you ask what traumatized them? They lived the exact same kind of life as you lived.

And that's the point. You lived through the same shit. Which means you are also traumatized. Which means your politics are just cope to run away from your pain and label it normal.

The war was illegal and wrong and costing billions if not a Trillion. I think Democrats should make no deals until Iran war has ended. Then when the win in November and take power in Jan , they can just refuse to fund Trump's war.

The Democrats will control purse strings and not give Trump money.

I intentionally don't use the word "race" because I think it's a social construct. But our ancestry isn't. And sorry, white supremacists, your group doesn't have the highest IQs. Asians do. But does this mean anything to you?

Here is a reference to an academic study that analyzes IQ differences among children with different ancestries.

"The Collaborative Perinatal Project is a longitudinal study of over 53,000 children followed from birth to 7 years. Up to now, studies have analyzed data on the 17,000 European American children and the 19,000 African American children. Here data are reported and analyzed for a sub-sample of 100 Asian Americans. The Asian sub-sample averaged a higher IQ (110) at age 7 than did the white (102) or the black sub-samples (90)."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289697900040

Why is it these people are scared to death of being associated with their own opinions?

In a 2021 speech to the Young Democratic Socialists of America, Zohran Mamdani referred to “the end goal of seizing the means of production” and said socialists should remain unapologetic about that objective. The phrase generally means transferring ownership or control of productive property—such as major businesses, factories, land, and industry—from private owners to workers, the state, or collective institutions.

Do you support that goal for the United States?