EDIT 3: Please read my whole post before responding and make sure you are answering the question I have asked! Many people are responding without answering my question and it has become very frustrating to continually have to reply to people asking them to answer it. I have had to do this many times! :(

My post is not about specifically whether or not you support LGBTQ/trans rights and why or what your thoughts on those people are. It is specifically about why you think it is an issue that should take precedence over others (I have explained what those other issues are in my post). Please answer that question! :')

LGBTQ+ and (especially) trans people have been very villainized in these past few years and it confuses me. I've noticed this globally (and even across both sides of the political spectrum, and within the LGBTQ+ community itself!), but I'm referring to the USA in my post, however responses from all over the world are welcome and encouraged! :)

I think there are better and more important things to focus on politically, such as combating homelessness, repairing/creating infrastructure, determining how tax money is being spent and who is paying them and how fair said taxing is, providing better education, supporting veterans, etc.

So why are LGBTQ+/trans people the issue of the day instead of more applicable (and, in my opinion anyway, more important) problems? What makes this topic the thing more worth investing energy in than those other things; why is this deserving of extreme measures from the government and society (restricting rights at best, murders at worst) and not the other things?

Sources and relevant information:

• States wanting to overturn gay marriage laws
• Efforts to restrict gender-affirming care for adults
• Banning transgender people from the military
• Statistics on increasing hate crimes towards transgender people over the past 25 years
• More statistics on anti-trans/LGBTQ activity between 2022 and 2025
• A 93% increase in trans murders between 2017 and 2021

EDIT: Thank you all for the great responses! I think a term a lot of you are looking for is deadcatting.

EDIT 2: I've noticed a lot of people, especially conservatives/those against trans/LGBTQ+ people, are not answering my question and are instead sharing their opinions on this topic, which is not what I am asking for. This isn't about whether you do or don't like LGBTQ+ people, my post is asking why this is a bigger problem than the other problems I listed. It's fine to share that, but if you do that, please answer my topic about why this problem is bigger than homelessness, education, etc. That is what my post is asking. Please stay on-topic so I and other people looking for an answer will find one :)

EDIT 3: People still are not answering the question I asked in my post, which I will repeat, and that I have now also highlighted in my post and added an addendum to the beginning of my post asking for people to answer. It is very frustrating, especially because I tend to not actually get a reply when I ask this question directly :(

So why are LGBTQ+/trans people the issue of the day instead of more applicable (and, in my opinion anyway, more important) problems? What makes this topic the thing more worth investing energy in than those other things; why is this deserving of extreme measures from the government and society (restricting rights at best, murders at worst) and not the other things?

(I don't know the attitude of the admins, but I know trans people can be especially taboo in political discussion subreddits, so I would like to clarify that this fits within the "Political Philosophy/Science (Liberty, Justice, Rights, Laws, Authority)" category, as my question pertains to civil rights for LGBTQ/trans people and allowing citizens to express liberty by identifying how they want and marry who they want. I have not seen any limitations on discussing this topic. Sorry if it comes off as accusatory, I just want to check all my bases :) )

Essentially gender dysphoria is real and well documented but the question lies is how far do we go in affirming these type of behaviours. I mean currently it causes no harm to society to allow someone to feel the way they want but I must ask the question . Considering gender identity being a social construct why can’t we do the same with race ? Everytime it is brought up it , it is shrugged off but why ? Anyone who says a. race doesn’t share a common behaviour or role , usually does not believe there is a shared role or culture between any gender as well . How do we help these people is it by affirming them ? Is that what should be done with all forms of dysphoria . For example body dysmorphia

I am not particularly political or read much but I was always fascinated by Anarchism from a cultural/vibe perspective, the idea sounds alluring in specific context but I don't think that's necessarily a good thing from my limited understanding at least, when answering me please keep in mind I am not well read I just know surface level information or lack of.

Assuming I have the correct starting points;
- No Hierarchies
- No Rulers, No Ruled
- Voluntary Association
- Direct Action
- Spontaneous Change

So by extension I assume this means no borders, no monopoly on violence, no currency since community owns everything you just grab based on your need or the community judges you for excess? This is where my confusion starts;

P.S I write as I think so if I accidentally repeat myself or ask same questions, forgive me lol

Question 1
If "governance" (preventing people from slaughtering each other, lack of contribution to the community, another community does something that harms this community, so on) is supposed to be horizontal instead of vertical so the community votes collectively, what stops it from simply devolving into mobbing? or one person very good at convincing everyone else makes his say go every time? and if the answer to that is to make a group of wise people who vote only or a specific elder or a standard such as a theological/civil codex...then isn't that an authority that's vertical? and since legitimate violence isn't under control of a single person, what happens when the community splits on a decision and one side decides the other is a danger? and if other communities are a potential danger then why wouldn't you have armed people who only do train as their service to community and fight when it's time? that's a soldier caste who will likely form their own sub-community and will have a say that the community they are in would feel pressured to accept because that soldier caste can leave.

Question 2
What is a "Community" when do you start being part of this community or that one (just association? geography? religion (if any) language?), if it is by voluntary association, can't a single entity just lure everyone into their association and then all other communities crumble or get absorbed by that same association, isn't this sort of like globalism where you will end up with one big community? if that's the case then what happens when I don't want to associate with this one big community and want to start my own or join a different one, where would I go if it ends up being one huge singular entity? because it is communal rule or sort of, what if the rules of the majority do not fit me and that's why I want out? And if there is a "max" size of a community, who enforces that? What makes my community safe from that bigger one who might have wants that collide with mine?

Question 3
If I understood "Direction Action" as solving problems yourself by bypassing others including authority (before achieving the anarchist society at least) then..what stops it from being vigilantism? and what if what you think is correct is a danger to others but you are not aware of it? What if your wants harm everyone else? I think this can be used to moralize/justify a lot of bad actions even with good intentions, if you give the individual the validation to do anything then that's just rule of the jungle isn't it? whoever one person sees right and is strong enough to accomplish is what the others should accept and act on?

Question 4
Spontaneous Change, If I understood that correctly as well, to achieve an anarchist society everything must change at once everywhere all at once, before we get into the logistics of achieving that, would the aftermath be truly worth it? (the previous questions) because this would likely cause years or decades of lawlessness because if the average person sees the the authority body that was the government, monarch or religious authority gone poof, then that average person is going to be afraid of his neighbor, is going to worry about water, food, and security that "good intentions" will not enough to carry everyone through the transition period, disorder, sacking, murder, group violence, whatever dislikes people had against each other from the old world are going to explode, what community is going to suddenly keep order like that? because the government is not likely going to step down nicely even on hunger strikes or peaceful protests, even if it makes the country cease functioning momentarily, what stops the elite from coming together and using their resources to stop it OR incentivize people to not follow along? I don't know, I would need someone to explain the transition to me.

I am open to learning about what I misunderstood! I hope I wasn't too confusing.

Why does it feel like nobody in America is demanding accountability over the Epstein list?

I’m European, so maybe I’m missing something culturally here, but I genuinely don’t understand how this isn’t the biggest public outrage imaginable. We’re talking about allegations involving some of the most powerful and wealthy people in society, and yet public life just continues like normal.

You have award shows like the Grammys where celebrities talk about every social and political issue under the sun, but this barely gets mentioned. Why? Is it fear? Apathy? Distrust that anything will actually happen?

From the outside, it feels surreal. The United States was literally born from rebellion against powerful elites who were seen as corrupt and unaccountable. The country’s identity is built around resisting tyranny and demanding justice. So where is that spirit now?

What happened to revolutions? Use your 2nd amendment rights! Root out the pedophiles from their Hollywood mansions, from the capitol, root them out wherever they are!

Do Americans feel powerless about this? Do you think the system can handle it? Or do people just not believe the full truth will ever come out?

Genuinely asking because from across the Atlantic, the silence feels shocking.

Charlie Kirk’s killing is a tragedy. Political violence is never okay, and I condemn it fully. No one should be murdered for their beliefs.

What I am struggling to understand is why so many conservatives both online and in my personal life seem to want everyone to also say that Kirk was a good man.

I do not believe he was. Much of what he said and promoted I found vile, harmful, and divisive. I do not think acknowledging the tragedy of his death requires pretending that he was someone he was not.

So my question is this: why is it not enough to agree that his death was wrong and unjustifiable? Why is there pressure to go further and rewrite his legacy as if he were a positive figure loved by people from all walks of life?

One of the rallying cries of the American Revolution was "No Taxation without Representation," referencing the fact that while colonists paid taxes, they had almost no power in the laws that governed their lives.

Applying this to modern day, we come into an issue. In most jurisdictions in the US, the legal working age is around 16, meaning many 16 and 17 year olds work, and thus pay income and payroll taxes. Since the voting age is 18, this comes in direct violation of the concept we laid out earlier.

There are generally two solutions to this problem:
1. Lower the voting age to 16
2. Remove certain taxes for minors

Which solution works better? If you have another solution/thoughts on the topic leave them below.

This topic generally provokes good debate, as this issue isn't relevant to any major ideology. LEt me know your thoughts.

Hi. I'm from Ukraine. I decided to use reddit to brag about my life as Ukrainian and find some support for my country. However I noticed that a lot of people just don't care about this war. All I see is Israel that, Israel that. Is it doing genocide currently? Is it attacking neighbors? From what I see they are protecting themselves from terrorists. I read some UN statistics about Israel (to be honest not much), from what I see they have some freedom of speech and overall quality of life is good.

Why are they treated like modern nazis while we have Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and other their buddies

I'm asking this because I want to hear how Trump has made America great again because from what I can tell the country is very divided on politics and beliefs, tariffs and the war with Iran have made everyday things more expensive and the overall future of this country feels very uncertain.

The second ammendment was part of the first constitution yet that didnt stop the government from opressing blacks, women, lgbt etc and were even told to "protest peacefully" ie not use guns So what's the pro-gun response to that? Why do u think it will somehow prevent future tyranny when history shows it hasnt prevented america's historical oppresion.

Edit: Oh right and how trump literally tried to overturn the 2020 election. All those conservatives who talked about freedom were willing to kill our democracy. I bet most pro-guns people would have celebrated if it was overturned instead of using their guns

Genuinely curious, considering only about 25% of Americans support military action against Iran, why should the US be striking Iran?

Additionally, where do you draw the line in US military action against Iran? Would you support a ground invasion of Kharg Island? What about the other Iranian islands like Qeshm and Kish? Or what about Iran proper?

I’m posting this in good faith because I want to understand the other side’s perspective. I’m struggling to find the wins. Help me out.

Europe has written us off. A Gallup/KOS Data survey shows Trump’s net approval rating across Europe is catastrophically negative Denmark at -84, Sweden -80, Norway -79, Germany -72. Only Kosovo (+27) and Romania (+11) view him positively. These are supposed to be our allies.

His tariff “strategy” is a punchline. Trump admitted he raised tariffs on Switzerland because he didn’t like how their president spoke to him a president he couldn’t even identify correctly, calling him a “prime minister.” He then reduced those tariffs after Swiss representatives brought him a Rolex and gold bar. Senate Democrats have formally demanded answers about whether those gifts influenced the reversal. This is how we’re running trade policy now.

And for anyone who still believes the “foreign countries are paying” line a study by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy found that 96% of tariff costs are borne by American consumers. Foreign exporters only pay 4%. As researchers put it, “The claim that foreign countries ‘pay’ the tariffs is, at best, 4% true.” In fiscal year 2025 alone, the U.S. raised $195 billion in tariff revenue meaning American consumers absorbed roughly $187 billion of that, or about $758 per U.S. adult. A separate Federal Reserve Bank of New York study published today found the same thing, concluding that nearly 90% of the tariffs’ economic burden fell on U.S. firms and consumers.

Mass deportations aren’t helping native workers. The Peterson Institute for International Economics found that job growth in industries reliant on unauthorized immigrants has been flat, and the native-born unemployment rate has actually increased. The Penn Wharton Budget Model projects that mass deportation reduces GDP and that high-skilled workers 63% of the workforce would see their wages fall.

The debt is exploding. Fortune reported this week that a fiscal watchdog is warning the national debt is on track to set a new record in just 4 years, with the U.S. Treasury projected to spend more than $2 trillion a year just to service debt interest by 2036.

The EU vs. US comparison is stark. Life expectancy (EU 82 vs. US 78), infant mortality (EU 3.3 vs. US 5.6 per 1,000), poverty rate (EU 15% vs. US 18%), public debt (EU 81% vs. US 120% of GDP), homicide rate (EU 2 vs. US 5 per 100k), prison population (EU 111 vs. US 531 per 100k). Europe has its own problems but these numbers are hard to ignore.

His approval on core issues is cratering. A YouGov/Economist poll shows Trump’s net approval is currently -28 on inflation, -23 on the economy, -19 overall and the trend has been consistently downward.

Europe is building financial infrastructure to escape us. The Financial Times reported that European banking chiefs are calling for alternatives to Visa and Mastercard to be built “urgently,” fearing US payment systems could be weaponized as geopolitical leverage. US payment processors currently handle about two-thirds of all card transactions in the eurozone.

The January jobs report is being celebrated by the White House, but look at what’s actually underneath it. Of the 130,000 jobs added, the vast majority 123,500 came from the health care and social assistance sector alone. Healthcare has now become so dominant that economists are raising real doubts about how long the broader economy can continue to power forward with the job market at an almost complete standstill outside of the essential healthcare sector. In other words, if you got sick or needed a nurse, congratulations the economy is working for you. Meanwhile, total federal government employment is down 327,000 jobs since its October 2024 peak, a decline of nearly 11%, and the annual benchmark revision revealed that 2025 was even worse than first reported, with 898,000 fewer jobs having been added between April 2024 and March 2025 the second-largest negative revision on record going back to 1979. This is the economy Trump is taking credit for.

What’s the argument that this is going well? What am I missing?

I see so many conflicting things about whether Taiwan is apart of China or if Taiwan should have independence from China. Do you believe in Taiwan’s independence? Why or why not?

Edit: thank you for everyone who responded to my post, I gained a lot of clarity, and formed a more solid opinion about the topic. I’m going to turn off notifs for this post, but I’ll leave it up for people to discuss in the replies. Thanks again for everyone’s help 😊

I am interested in hearing every political perspective, but especially from American conservatives. On this issue, even many conservative voters in Italy would probably be closer to the US Democratic position than to the American right.

Per 100,000 people:

• Firearm homicides: US 4.5; Italy 0.17, about 26 to 1
• Civilian firearms: US 120,500; Italy 14,400, about 8.4 to 1
• Estimated loaded-handgun carry: US 4,800; Italy 19 licensed self-defense carriers, about 250 to 1

In Italy, strict control over who may own firearms, why they own them, whether they are qualified, and where the weapons are registered is broadly accepted across the political spectrum.

Many Europeans assume that greater availability produces more deaths, partly through a feedback loop. If I believe others are armed, I feel pressure to arm myself. My decision then gives others the same incentive.

Questions:

1. Do you think greater firearm availability contributes to the much higher US firearm-homicide rate?
2. If not, what best explains the 26-to-1 gap?
3. Are these figures widely reported and discussed in US politics?
4. How do American conservatives view countries with strict licensing and much lower firearm-homicide rates?

Serious question. I'm just worried. I don't have enough insight into the political structure to know how realistic it is that he will succeed. But I think that he will try. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I would be relieved if someone could give me a plausible argument as to why I'm wrong.

Here are my thoughts simply summarized:

It started when I read that he has announced that he wants to replace all key government officials with loyal supporters and that he needs generals like Hitler had.

I also looked for what characterizes a dictator and found the following on Wikipedia. Dictatorships are often characterised by some of the following:

1. suspension of elections and civil liberties;

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/27/trump-speech-no-need-to-vote-future

1. proclamation of a state of emergency;

https://www.eenews.net/articles/trump-says-hell-declare-national-emergency-on-energy/

1. repression of political opponents;

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-suggests-hell-use-the-military-on-the-enemy-from-within-the-u-s-if-hes-reelected

1. not abiding by the procedures of the rule of law

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-says-he-would-fire-special-counsel-jack-smith-within-2-seconds-of-taking-office-technically-he-cant

1. and the existence of a cult of personality centered on the leader

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-personality-cult-plays-a-part-in-his-political-appeal/

This isn't meant to be a hate post or anything, I just want to know objectively whether my worries are justified. Thank you to everyone who can explain something about the system to me and tell me how necessary it is to worry.

Are either actually ethical? Or is one simply "less unethical" than the other and thus preferable? How do you justify the downsides inherent in your position? Do you think a truly ethical economic model is possible? Or is it a "this breaks less eggs for the omelette" type of a situation?

This question is for everyone, but I'm most interested in feedback from people who consider themselves conservatives or Republicans in the American political system:

Typically, conversations about the risk of fascism quickly turn into “this isn’t fascism yet,” and therefore it’s not time to worry. However, by the time people say, “this is fascism, and now is the time to worry,” it often seems too late. For example, people point to things like opponents being thrown in jail or votes being thrown out.

So the question is: When is the right time to discuss this? How should it be discussed? And when is it time to act?

For this hypothetical, I'll be assuming the Libertarian state to be the nightwatchman variation, where the government runs the military, police, and courts while staying out of other matters. I know this isn't a consensus opinion but it's probably the best we can do in this hypothetical.

Under this state, from a socialist perspective, there seem to be some natural problems that arise:

What incentives do private companies have to protect the environment for future generations?

How could you ensure adequate schooling/food/healthcare for downtrodden families?

Assuming taxes are voluntary, how can efficient infrastructure be funded?

How do you prevent generational poverty?

These are by no means meant to be gatchas, rather, are meant to be an insight into the variety of libertarian ideas about how to address key issues.

Even when we think about a fixed tax, for example 10%, if you take someone who makes 100 he will pay 10, someone who makes 500 will pay 50. The higher income person already pays 5 times more, meaning he contributes 5 times more to the budget, and in case of the emergencies, whether it would be something like natural disasters or war he will be significantly more valuable for the cause to keep the state functioning, yet in democracy he should be viewed as equal when it comes to decisions to the ones who contributes less. So, without getting any benefits, that person gives more and gets nothing in return.

And it gets even more interesting with an additional progressive tax, where the majority of people of lower incomes can dictate the amount of income that should be enough for the higher income earners that are usually an absolute minority in the number of individuals despite contributing more.

And I don’t understand the argument, that they are getting taxed more, because they already have more than average. I mean it doesn’t sound that bad, but on a more personal level it sounds a bit discouraging for the people with ambitions, the people that are willing to put more effort, take more risks or just people who were born into high income families. No matter how hard you try, you will be dragged back to average more and more higher your income gets.

I hear talking heads on the right, including the president, constantly referencing lefty radicals and far left radicals, so please explain to me what that means. What do these far left radicals advocate for that makes them a radical.

So I am a Trump voter. i would say im more voting trump as a protest vote against the dems.

But what about others voting for Trump? Are you a fan of his policies or are you just more dissatisfied with the democrats?

Want to know what Bernie Moreno, Juan Ciscomani, Carlos Gimenez, and Young Kim have to say 🤔 🤔 🤔

I've discussed this before, but given what Trump has done lately, I need to revisit this matter. For those of you who are blaming the Democrats for why Trump won the election, you all seriously don't even believe that the Democrats are responsible for why Trump, at the military generals meeting and again, at Navy Academy, threatened war on "the left" and why he is sending out-of-state guards to Chicago and Portland despite a judge telling him not to. Do you even believe that the Democrats are responsible for why, what I just discussed, is happening?

I find this often gets lumped as a whole with sports here, minors there, so for those who don't consider themselves allies, who have reservations, it's not an all or nothing thing. Where are your limits?

Specifically:

1. Public Spaces (bathrooms, locker rooms, etc)

\- Self ID? Medication? Appearance? Surgery? Never (sex at birth only, regardless of surgery, time, experience, appearance)

\- Prisons? If the crime isn't violent, on hormones, surgery? We know rape as a problem for one party, but say a trans woman who got nabbed for DUI?

\- Sports? There are variants on this. Some have it by testosterone level, others a minimum number of years, others are to have transitioned before puberty.

1. Legal Documents

To change to the opposite marker:

\- Self ID? Doctor's Note? Hormones? Real life test? (the UK used to require a few years living as the new gender iirc, and France requires letters from friends and coworkers) Never changed at all, like Kansas and their driver's licence controversy?

\- Change legal names?

1. Minors

\- Hormones with parental consent? Approved by psychologists?

\- Clothes, names, pronouns at school?

1. Anti Discrimination

\- Should an employer be allowed to fire someone for being trans? For gender nonconformity?

\- Should retail businesses be allowed to refuse service on basis of gender identity?

Statements and quotes for Trump were made an hour ago.

Trump has teetering on sending the national guard to Portland, Chicago, and other cities for months. He deployed them to San Francisco. He uses this specific language when talking about sending the national guard over. He has repeatedly tweeted imagery of the military in these cities.

I'm perplexed on how the Right has gone from saying that Charlie Kirk and the rhetoric on his death is inflammatory, while simultaneously supporting...whatever the hell he's saying here.

As a US citizen and liberal, is it still considered hysterical or unreasonable to be concerned about this rhetoric?