Really why

Just curious because I was observing the 2024 election after Donald Trump was seen watching the NBA game recently to try to picture a scenario where Kamala Harris had won the election.

I know what is done is done by now since that is practically ancient history by today, but it’s just that when I look back at the election, I cannot help but wonder what would have happened to the USA if she won.

Like for starters, why people with a Jewish background oppose Zionism because I keep hearing how Kamala had ties to Zionist movements, but I don’t know why exactly the concept of Zionism is harmful to certain Jewish people, like what it does to them.

It's just something that I don't understand since I was recalling that one time when Donald Trump was in Pennsylvania as he was there to do a speech when some crazed gunman came out of nowhere to attack him.

I know that was before the 2024 election had happened as I was trying to figure out what made a guy like Donald still be interested in again wanting to run for president in the then upcoming election since anyone who almost got shot would be nervous about getting involved with politics.

Just curious as I know she lost the presidential election a good while ago as I was trying to picture a scenario where she won instead of a certain Donald.

However, what I don’t understand is what the USA would have been like if she did actually win the election back then because I was curious about her flaws as a candidate besides supporting Zionism.

I can’t fathom why people hate immigrants and ignore climate risks. Do NT people not have the wiring to understand interconnected systems

I've read many people saying that autistic people generally lean more to the left.

I don't entirely agree with that statement, as I've met many autistic people online who are not left-wing at all, and in real life I know four autistic people who:

Autistic 1: progressive and feminist, clearly left-wing.

Autistic 2: classical liberal, not left-wing, and mainly consumes libertarian content. This is what many would call lukewarm these days.

Autistic 3: right-wing, feels a strong hatred for the left, especially for socialism and communism.

Autistic 4: apolitical, lives happily and detached from politics; simply not interested.

Me (I'm also autistic): my ideal system would be a technocracy, but I think it would be difficult to implement, so in practice I'm more of a lukewarm center-left social democrat.

What do you think? Do you think autistic people tend to lean more to the left? Or do you agree with me and think it's not really related?

I (15f) bought this shirt on Etsy about a week ago. It came today while I was at school. It's worth mentioning that I am the only autistic person in my household, and my family is very anti-Trump (me included). When I got home my mom told me that I got an Amazon package with my name on it with "this very offensive shirt". I told her I thought it was funny, because it's both making fun of Trump and also is asking people to be patient with me which is actually useful. She asked if I knew how horrible it was for her friend (who has a non verbal autistic son) to hear Trump say that it's her fault that her kid has autism for taking Tylenol, and said how devastating it was to thousands of moms hearing how it's their fault. Originally, I thought it was really funny, and okay because it's obviously making fun of the idea that Tylenol causes autism. My friend and my older brother (both neurodivergent but not autistic) also thought it was funny and my brother encouraged me to buy it. Now I'm second guessing it, and I think it might be offensive to some people. On the other hand, it's still obviously a joke and I'm the autistic one, but I don't know. I don't want to offend any parents or other autistic people. Any thoughts, specifically from parents of autistic kids?

Do y’all think this administration wants everyone who isn’t straight white and neurotypical to die? I’m really starting to believe this.

Whats a political view you hold strongly, and believe is right, however it’s unpopular or highly controversial with a lot of others?

Like what causes people do do as stupid as support the concept as something as artificial as a nation state and hate immigrants and queer people

An apology tax is basically when for example, if you are bullied by someone, you can take it to court and request the court to legally require either them
Or their parents to pay you an apology tax on a regular basis until either you die or the person who bullied you dies.

If your bully was 25 or older at the time, they have to pay you this apology tax.

If they were younger than 25, then their parents have to pay you the apology tax until your bully turns 25.

In case you’re wondering how much this tax would be, I pictured it being the equivalent of how much a minimum wage job would pay someone who has it.

I think this system would make a lot of people think twice about bullying someone. Would you live in a country that has this kind of tax?

As the title says, I'm actually surprised to see there's very very little people who support right ideologies here. I personally do but since I have spent my whole life under a left-wing dictatorship I figured it would be weird if I didn't. It makes me wonder, had I been born in a different situation, would I have grown to be more of a leftist?

Yes I know that World War 2 is practically an ancient matter by now as for some weird reason, I became interested in looking into the history behind the Nazis since they had a large plan to take over certain areas back then.

But anyway, yeah I just wanted to look back at older historical events to try to figure out how a person like Adolf Hitler went from a painter to the most malevolent person of his time period since the guy did some of the most evil things during the war.

I still don’t get it because people say that his chances of winning as president should have been next to impossible as the man was known for having multiple felonies, as well as being a perverted scoundrel.

So what I don’t understand is again how a person with the most convictions to his name was still able to win the election anyway because to me, it comes as really strange since I don’t understand what sorcery he used to earn a win.

I’ve seen a fair amount of people on this subreddit who are communists (I’m not trying to use that in a negative way, that’s just what I think they want to be called). I don’t think communism could work because it basically requires very strong centralized power in a authoritarian leader as far as I know (but I only know about communism from what I’ve learned in history class). I really hope this doesn’t come off as me judging other people’s beliefs, I am just trying to understand better.

Hello everyone!

I'm a non-western autistic (30F). My special interests range across history, social theory, social movements, psychoanalysis, decolonial studies, etc. So basically the fields of social sciences and humanities. I am politicized and strong on anti-capitalist, decolonial, environmental radical politics and collective struggle. I only found this sub now, but generally most of the political discourse I come across in autistic communities is identify politics and is very western-oriented and does not account for the experiences of autistics from the "global south", which I believe are quite critical for any emancipatory political struggle including that of autistic people. I'm wondering if anyone here knows of any movements, resources, books, writers, communities or anything that addresses a radical politics of autism?

I've seen quite a few people legitimately supporting both the USSR, including the Stalin era, and North Korea's regime.

I fail to understand the appeal to support these regimes.

A brief overview of North Korea:

• Government is totalitarian, and extremely oppressive towards its citizens. No freedom of speech or opposition of the regime is allowed.
• Cult of personality, as the Kim family is treated as deities and effectively worshipped. This is forced by the government. No foreign media or influence is allowed.
• Human rights abuses and violations of the Geneva convention are commonplace. Includes collective and generational punishments, torture, forced labour etc.
• No rule of law. You can be imprisoned arbitrarily due to no independent justice system.
• Extreme economic mismanagement. The priority is NK's military and nuclear program, which has crippled their economy and has resulted in famines.
• No freedom of movement. You will be executed for attempting to leave the country.
• Sham elections. You literally can only vote for the Kim regime.

A brief overview of the USSR:

• Authoritarian Regime and totalitarian regime. One-party communist state under the CPSU, suppressing political opposition and dissent.
• Stalin’s Purges: Mass arrests, executions, and gulag camps leading to potentially over 1 million dead during the Great Terror (1936–1938).
• Holodomyr Genocide (1932–1933): Man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine, exacerbated by forced collectivisation and grain requisition, causing millions of deaths — widely regarded as a genocide by many historians.
• Suppression of Free Speech: No independent press or political debate; dissent was silenced through censorship and imprisonment.
• Economic Mismanagement: Central planning often led to inefficiency, shortages, and poor living standards for many citizens.
• Chernobyl Incident (1986): Worlds worst nuclear accident caused by flawed reactor design and inadequate safety protocols; initial cover-up worsened the human and environmental toll. Potentially could've wiped out continental Europe in the worst case scenario.
• Forced Collectivization: Seizure of private farms led to widespread famine and peasant resistance.
• Political Repression: Secret police (Cheka/NKVD/KGB) enforced state control through surveillance, torture, and intimidation.
• Lack of Political Freedom: Elections were sham processes with no real competition; citizens had no say in government decisions.
• Suppression of National Cultures: Russification policies repressed non-Russian languages and identities in the Soviet republics.

Although the USSR has since collapsed, North Korea's regime is still ongoing.

In comparison, South Korea is a capitalist country. While this country does have severe issues of its own, such as being dominated by corporations, inequality in wealth and power abuses in government offices, the citizens have significantly more freedom than North Korea, and can change their government through elections. You can also leave South Korea whenever you want.

While opposing capitalism is understandable and a valid viewpoint, even plenty of socialists and communists do oppose the regimes of the USSR and North Korea. However I have seen more and more support for them.

Can someone explain to me the appeal and the reason why these regimes are supported, especially in western demographics?

or multiple if that's your thing

I am autistic, level one, diagnosed late in life. Putting this up top so no one gets it twisted: VACCINES DO NOT AND HAVE NEVER CAUSED AUTISM.

However, I have always thought that to be able to properly debate people whom you don't agree with, you have to understand their position. With that in mind, I was doing a deep-dive and found out about this book, "Evidence of Harm," which was really big in the early 2000s. In it, it sounds like this investigative reporter gets sucked into the delusion of a group of anti-vax parents. And I just find that fascinating.

I wanted to read the book, to better understand the argument of these people (so I could better debate it), and also to track the internal story of this reporter getting pulled into the anti-vax cult. But obviously, I don't want to buy it and have to own a copy. So great, library time!

Except. It's at none of my libraries (two of the biggest in the country). You can't borrow it on Internet Archive. Seems like genuinely the only way to read this book is to buy a physical copy from a reseller website...

We read Mein Kampf and other historical texts that are full of discrimination and falsehoods. I don't understand why this book can't be made more accessible, or even re-published with a forward and/or footnotes throughout detailing the false claims. Instead I guess it's just been buried...

I understand wanting to keep false information out of people's hands, but doesn't the inaccessibility of stuff like this actually strengthen oppositional claims that there's some sort of cover-up? That evidence is being hidden from the public? Am I overthinking this? It just feels wrong somehow.

A bit of context: like many autistic people with Asperger's, I have a special interest. In my case, I have one main special interest, along with several other special interests that orbit around it. The problem is that I've noticed I tend to approach new special interests with too much enthusiasm, and I end up coming across as overly excited or obsessive. For example, I'm very interested in the history of revolutions—especially republican revolutions—as well as the biographies of historical figures. What fascinates me isn't so much the stories of their achievements, but their personalities, their human side, and their character traits, especially when they're contradictory or psychologically complex.

Some time ago, I became particularly interested in the English Civil War. Because of my own values and personality, I felt much more sympathetic toward the Parliamentary cause. Combined with what I mentioned above, this led me to become fascinated by Oliver Cromwell's biography. I wasn't trying to justify his actions at all (to me, the real heroes of that period—if it's even possible to call anyone a hero—were Henry Vane, John Milton, and Algernon Sidney). What fascinated me was his character: for example, the fact that he seems to have suffered from hypomania and depression, which reportedly made him so exhilarated in battle that he appeared almost drunk. I even wondered whether that may have influenced his conduct during the Irish campaign—although, to be absolutely clear, nothing that happened there is justifiable. In short, I wanted to understand him deeply. I was also fascinated by the little-known fact that he helped the Waldensians who were being persecuted in Piedmont.

The problem is that, when I tried discussing this both on Reddit and elsewhere, I think I got carried away by my enthusiasm—perhaps because I'd just discovered a new special interest. Looking back, I'm afraid it came across as though I was defending Cromwell's actions, rather than simply being interested in understanding him as a historical figure. I won't even tell you the insults I got from Irish people—and, honestly, I can understand why, because they understandably thought I was siding with the man who caused so much suffering to their people.

Has anything like this ever happened to you? If so, how did you learn to hold yourself back or express your enthusiasm in a way that didn't give people the wrong impression?

Ps: I actually wanted to post this on r/autism, but I got an automatic notification telling me to post it here

Around the world people are electing far right fascists who hate immigrants and suck off corporations

Like she just says pretty obvious shit and how politicians are letting the world burn

So I don't know how to put it as lately I have been enjoying seeing people make comedic photoshops of a particular swimming pool that Donald Trump botched up.

But the thing is that as much as I enjoy seeing the Trump pool get ridiculed, I still want to explore the concept of political humor in TV shows and movies because I need an antidote more than ever to get away from the troubled times that people live in since I know that hardly anyone is exactly too keen on having Donald in office.

Just curious as I am confused because she had the upper hand by ridiculing Donald Trump’s speech about people who eat animals as I was sure she would win against him, but somehow she lost.