stupidpol

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1qg4lvs/trump_ally_and_ice_deputy_director_resigns_to_run/

So it looks like this election is going to be between a legit blood-and-soil nationalist (Madison Sheahan, former ICE deputy director), and an aging New Deal Democrat (Marcy Kaptur) who's held the seat for 42 years but has lost significant ground with the rise of Trump. While Kaptur is far from the worst Democrat in the House (endorser of Bernie Sanders in 2016, opposes free trade), she is from the "work across the aisle" school that the Republicans already abandoned with Mitch McConnell's obstructionism, and in which they now certainly have no interest due to the MAGA takeover of the party.

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1q1yjlx/how_mexico_more_than_tripled_its_minimum_wage_in/

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1qg5dg3/eu_set_to_suspend_us_trade_deal_according_to_epp/

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1qg0dqt/kushner_rubio_blair_named_on_trumps_board_to/

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1qgad3h/libbygrad_bans_longtime_contributor_and_deletes/

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1psw3km/opinion_discrimination_against_young_white_men/

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1qgad3h/libbygrad_bans_longtime_contributor_and_deletes/

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1qg916m/british_taxpayer_funds_creation_of_new_far_right/

As well as it being a shitpost, it's also technically the truth

https://trending.knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/what-is-pathways-and-who-is-amelia-the-controversial-memes-about-the-viral-uk-anti-immigration-goth-girl-explained

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1qg9itb/neoliberal_brain/

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1ppa40f/billionaire_palantir_cofounder_calls_for_return/

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1nlnfku/the_sub/

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1kbim0p/the_city_of_san_marcos_texas_has_suggested_that/

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1qfrxw9/the_rich_do_not_fund_our_public_services_we_do/

https://xcancel.com/jasonhickel/status/2012145902589268111?s=46

We need a better, more ambitious message when it comes to taxation. The rich do not fund our public services. We do. My latest for New Internationalist.

"Now, once we understand that the main fiscal purpose of taxation is not to fund public services but to reduce excess demand, we can have a clear view of who should be taxed: the rich.

The problem with the rich is that they demand too much of our productive capacities. Their money translates into massive purchasing power (and also enables them to increase their investments and ownership of production). So we are then required to use our labour and resources to produce things like mansions, private jets, sports cars, estates, luxury goods and so on. This facilitates elite consumption and accumulation but it does not benefit society – it is wasteful, ecologically destructive, and it should be curtailed so that we can undertake production that does benefit society.

Taxation can be used to help achieve this in two ways: a) tax income and wealth over a certain threshold, and b) tax damaging and unnecessary goods.

Ultimately, we do not need to tax wage labour at all.

If a key purpose of taxation is to reduce excess demand and consumption, then it is reasonable to implement a very simple and straightforward tax rule. All income below a certain minimum threshold (the level needed to acquire goods and services necessary to live a good life) should be taxed at zero per cent, and all income above a certain maximum threshold (a level beyond which additional consumption is clearly unnecessary and destructive) should be taxed at 100 per cent.

The response from some on the right might be that under such a tax system the working classes would be contributing nothing whereas the rich would be contributing everything. But remember, taxation does not fund public services. The rich are not ‘contributing’ at all. Rather, we are preventing them from using too much of our productive capacity so that we can use it ourselves, for other purposes. So who is contributing? We are, in the form of our labour."

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1qfs6ms/where_the_iranian_casualty_numbers_come_from/

"Critics of the Iranian government, primarily in the West, claim that thousands of people have died in the protests. In particular, the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) put the death toll at 2,615 on Wednesday.

However, the Iranian government said these numbers have been exaggerated, and Iranian state TV reports put the figure at about 300."

Fuck the Islamic republic, and any other theocracy for that matter.. But Jesus Christ, reddit just loves parroting whatever huge number comes up. I think they're at around 100K victims 😑

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1qfe8u4/which_nation_threatening_greenland_cant_denmark/

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1qff6ut/the_minnesota_general_strike_and_the_reemergence/

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1qfp10f/australian_woman_charged_with_antisemitic_hate/

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1qfy63p/can_men_get_pregnant_a_stupid_question_with_a/

The clip of the Senator asking the Doctor “can men get pregnant?” has spread around the internet like wildfire in the last few days.

And sadly, the comments on Reddit, YouTube, etc. are pretty stupid.

Here’s my attempt at recreating that moment in history with how the conversation should have went:

“Can men get pregnant?”

“I am a woman of science. I assume you want the scientific answer?”

“Yes. Answer my question: can men get pregnant?”

“ Scientifically, please pay attention and don’t interrupt - I want you to understand the science at play here… I’ll say “ready for more questions” when I finish my answer…please don’t interrupt before then, I want you and everyone here to comprehend the scientific and logical answer… here it is:

First, let’s establish some scientific context so we all have a shared baseline of knowledge.

Sex (male/female) refers to biological characteristics like chromosomes (XY for male, XX for female), reproductive anatomy, and gametes (sperm vs. eggs), though intersex variations exist in nature.

Biological females can get pregnant.

Biological males cannot get pregnant.

Some intersex variations, particularly "true hermaphrodites" (having both ovarian and testicular tissue) can get pregnant.

With this scientific context established, here is the full answer to your question:

“Man” and “woman” are social constructs / concepts (within “gender”), meaning societies create roles, behaviors, and expectations around biological sex, differing from the biological reality of sex (male/female).

While biology provides the foundation (sex), gender involves cultural ideas about masculinity and femininity, influencing how people act, dress, and feel, existing on a spectrum beyond just two categories.

So, to answer your question:

A woman who is biologically female can have children.

A woman who is biologically male cannot have children.

A woman who is biologically a hermaphrodite can have children.

*Note: Some intersex individuals with both ovarian and testicular tissue (sometimes called "true hermaphrodites") can have biological children, either by getting pregnant or impregnating someone, though it's rare and often involves medical intervention like fertility treatments, as fertility depends on specific anatomy (uterus, ovaries, functional sperm production) and hormone balance, with documented cases of pregnancy and live births existing but requiring specialized reproductive care.

Continuing the answer to your question…

A man who is biologically male cannot have children.

A man who is biologically female can have children.

A man who is biologically a hermaphrodite can have children.

Final answer:

Some women and men (biological females and hermaphrodites) can have children.

Some women and men (biological males) cannot have children.

You’re welcome.

Oh, and I changed my mind… no more questions. ”

(Mic drop)

(Stands up, moonwalks out of the room)

End Scene

P.S.

Authors reflection:

It blows my mind that she was so unprepared for this question.

It blows my mind even more that he is wasting tax payer dollars (our money) by wasting Congressional time with this nonsense.

It blows my mind way more that he would waste precious time on Earth… moments of his life and her life… just to ask this question in an attempt to further his agenda.

It blows my mind the most that I am wasting valuable moments of my own life typing this…

I guess I care. I care about misinformation, sloppy rhetoric (the Senator), poor answers (the “Doctor”) and ignorant Redditors who ignore science and logic.

Well, hopefully y’all learned something.

TLDR - to reiterate the actual answer:

Some women and men (biological females and hermaphrodites) can get pregnant.

Some women and men (biological males) cannot get pregnant.

Science for the win :)

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1qf5gx7/i_have_no_words/

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1qf7sbf/kaiser_permanente_settles_medicare_fraud_claims/

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1qez51n/ive_not_seen_many_make_this_point_but_it_is_such/

Predictably, in the comments for this article, some libs thought the appropriate rebuttal was "because they did things legally." Ok lol.

Link to article: https://jacobin.com/2026/01/trump-obama-biden-executive-power

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1qf0tcv/doj_investigating_gov_tim_walz_minneapolis_mayor/

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1lf90wa/stupidpol_final_boss/

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1qf2uas/what_are_the_actual_chances_of_a_civil_war/

So, this is a semi-shitpost because I personally think that it’s pretty unlikely. But I’m also curious what you all think. Tensions are continuing to rise between the federal government and certain blue states, and I think that makes it an interesting possibility to explore, if nothing else.

If it did actually happen, here’s the one way I could see it going down.

Step one: any number of blue states that have had enough of the federal government/Trump administration form a coalition and mutually agree that they’re ready to rumble. We may see blocs of contagious blue states form (e.g. the three West Coast states).

Step two: Democratic leaders in said states somehow figure out a way to consolidate power amongst the various law enforcement agencies and National Guard contingencies of their respective states such that these organizations could be effectively marshaled against the federal government. This would be an enormous hurdle to clear, but if these politicians could figure it out, then we’d have ourselves a ball game.

Step three: these states then take some kind of materially adverse action against the federal government that actually has some teeth, such as barring DHS agents from their territory by force.

Step four: Trump and co. lose their fucking minds and the game is on. We may see some troops from the DOD branches defect to their home states (if they intend to take on the federal government), although most probably wouldn’t…?

Of course, this scenario would require the Democratic leaders of those blue states to have gargantuan balls, which is completely uncharacteristic of them.> Anyway, like I said, it’s pretty unlikely. But, if it did happen, that’s how I could see it going down. What do you all think?

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1qfmapz/throwback_anytime_someone_tries_to_memoryhole_or/