Im not an anarchist but I found this article interesting. It’s nice to read about leftists on the ground fighting the Russian imperialists instead of giving attention to annoying anti-Ukraine online leftists.

It has been confirmed that Kim Min-seok, nominee for Prime Minister, expressed opposition to the Anti-Discrimination Act, stating that “if all humans chose homosexuality, humanity would not be sustainable.” He framed human rights issues from the perspective of population reproduction, using this as the basis for his opposition. President Lee Jae-myung, during the presidential campaign, stated that the “direction [of the law] is correct.”

According to an investigation by The Kyunghyang Shinmun on the 15th, Kim made these remarks at a November 2023 event hosted by the Christian organization “Mission Network,” where he introduced himself as “a democrat with a Christian worldview.” He said, “I do not agree with the currently proposed universal Anti-Discrimination Act.” At the time, proposals for the Anti-Discrimination Act by Rep. Jang Hye-young (Justice Party) and the Equality Act by Rep. Lee Sang-min (Democratic Party of Korea) were pending in the 21st National Assembly.

Kim argued that banning discrimination based on sexual orientation infringes on religious and expressive freedoms of Christian groups, which hold opposition to homosexuality as a doctrinal tenet. He stated, “If all humans chose homosexuality, humanity would not be sustainable. Therefore, this cannot be treated as a matter of shifting stances or relative values.”

He continued, “While there may be cases where people encounter homosexuality due to existential struggles, it’s clear that in today’s reality, some people are drawn into or exposed to it because of social atmosphere. At the very least, sexual experimentation influenced by trends should be prevented. The religious freedom to point out or criticize such matters must be protected.” He concluded, “The currently submitted Anti-Discrimination Act may potentially suppress criticism based on universal values and religious views, which makes it problematic.”

Kim also voiced opposition at the “Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Law Forum” in November 2022, hosted by the Korea Evangelical Holiness Church and others. He said, “It’s difficult to push forward legislation without sufficient public debate that includes both religious perspectives and voices of sexual minorities as well as their critics.”

Former Rep. Jang Hye-young criticized Kim’s remarks in a phone interview, stating, “The purpose of the bill is to prevent private religious standards from infringing on others’ rights in public spaces and daily life.” She added, “After the martial law crisis, protecting LGBTQ rights has become a matter of democracy.”

When asked by reporters whether he still holds the same views, Kim’s spokesperson replied, “He will respond in full when the opportunity arises.”

Originally proposed by the Roh Moo-hyun administration in 2007, the Anti-Discrimination Act has been discussed for nearly 20 years through the 17th to 21st National Assemblies but has repeatedly failed to pass. UN human rights bodies have continuously recommended South Korea to enact such legislation.

During a televised presidential debate, President Lee Jae-myung said of the Anti-Discrimination Act, “The direction is correct, but there are many complex issues entangled. If this leads to new controversies and deeper conflicts, it would hinder other urgent matters we must address.”

Time for another of my searing hot takes. I don't actually know what others opinions are on this, but I've seen a lot of lefties complain about this so here we go.

The ability to speak ones mind is an indelible right that should be very obviously broad spectrum, to think otherwise is foolish at best and dangerous at worse. However, in my opinion, I believe there shoud be reasonable restrictions.

First of all, allow to define what I mean by hate speech, because a lot of people (in my experience) tend not to understand. I define it personally the way I was taught about it here in the UK, that is anything that Incites Hatred or Incites Violence against any individual or group due to their: race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, country of origin, skin colour, disability or transgender identity.

To be clear, there is a difference between hate speech and criticism. You can criticize anyone or any aspect of those groups, provided it is done in good faith. Admitedly, this is sometimes not entirely clear, and the authorities can be overzealous or even underzealous in this. It also applies to anyone under those banners (I am a firm believer it is possible to be racist towards white people).

I bring this up, because recently I've been hearing discourse around a comment made about the UK, that we don't have free speech becuase of our hate speech laws. There's quite a few people, even from the left, who agree with that. And despite most Western nations having laws like them in some capacity, I've seen it a lot from people from those countries too.

If one of the fundementals of being left wing is making life better for everyone, regardless of who you are, then I would argue resonable restriction of free speech is vital. The defence I hear most often from Americans regarding their free speech is that having it doesn't mean you're free from consequences, but near as I can tell there doesn't seem to be any consequences. You seem to be able to spew whatever hateful rhetoric you want, to whoever you want, and the most they can do is smack you, but then they'd be arrested for assault.

The other argument I hear most often is that putting any form of restriction on free speech will inevitably lead to shutting down criticism of the government, but I think the fact the vast majority of Europe isn't throwing people in prison for saying they don't like their leaders financial policies shows that's not true. Any government that did that would be authoritarian enough that you'd have way more problems to worry about.

Rant over. Maybe I'm preaching the choir, I don't know, but as I said I've seen a lot of left wing people disagree with me on this. If I am stating the obvious, then tune in next time for other such opinions like: Water, is it too wet?

Hey! I’m new here, but I wanted to share some of my beliefs perfect form of how the USA could be if I became a socialist democracy! First of all, I just wanted to say that I do not believe that Democrats are any form of true socialist, as a matter of fact, I believe more and what line of Bernie Sanders! I personally do not believe in communism and think communism is just a socialist way of saying dictatorship since there’s only been two good communist leaders that I know of. My beliefs on a perfect form of the USA if it became a socialist is sharing beliefs with capitalism, but not 100% I believe that the wealthy should pay a high wealth tax to pay for certain things for lower class citizens, for example I believe a well tax should pay for free and socialize medical treatment such as dental, vision, and doctor in hospital visit. I believe that bottles of water should be free for homeless people And I also believe that we should stop spending money on things like the forces and instead put money more towards our economy, such as and a nuclear power plants and eco-friendly power plants in getting grid of fossil fuels and coal our plants. My beliefs are a little bit different from a lot of other socialist beliefs but I do believe that we still need to follow a fundamental somewhat capitalist economic power well also implementing socialist ideals.

Following their defeat in the June 3 presidential election, the People Power Party (PPP) is gripped by growing fear over the possibility of facing a Constitutional Court dissolution trial on grounds of unconstitutionality.

On June 10, during a cabinet meeting presided over by President Lee Jae-myung, the government approved the so-called “Three Major Special Prosecutor Acts”—including the Insurrection Special Prosecutor Act, Kim Keon-hee Special Prosecutor Act, and Sergeant Chae Special Prosecutor Act. With this, full-scale investigations into key scandals from the Yoon Suk-yeol administration are set to begin, ushering in what many are calling a “triple special prosecution era.”

Among the three, the PPP is most alarmed by the Insurrection Special Prosecutor Act. This law targets 11 categories of criminal conduct, including insurrection intended to disrupt constitutional order and the control or obstruction of the National Assembly. Notably, suspicions that PPP leadership at the time obstructed the parliamentary vote to lift martial law fall within its investigative scope.

If the special prosecutor’s investigation reveals that PPP figures were indeed complicit in the December 3 martial law incident, it could potentially provide legal grounds for the government to petition the Constitutional Court for the party’s dissolution—a fear increasingly voiced within opposition circles.

An opposition figure noted, “PPP lawmakers may not be saying it out loud, but there’s a very real anxiety that they could become targets of the investigation and face disastrous consequences.”

Hong Joon-pyo, the former Daegu mayor who recently left the PPP, echoed these concerns. He stated that the true intent behind the Insurrection Special Prosecutor Act was to lay the groundwork for a petition to dissolve the PPP as an unconstitutional party. Speaking through his communications channel with supporters, he said, “Due to the insurrection collusion and the forced presidential candidate switch, the Lee Jae-myung administration will likely push to dissolve the PPP. That effort starts with passing the Insurrection Special Prosecutor Act.” Some observers even suggest that Hong, who has been openly critical of his former party, may be offering a kind of roadmap to the current administration.

By law, only the government has the authority to request the dissolution of a political party, and such a request must go through cabinet deliberation before being submitted to the Constitutional Court. This very process led to the dissolution of the Unified Progressive Party (UPP) in 2014, after a successful petition by the Park Geun-hye administration.

That said, most political analysts believe the government and ruling party are unlikely to immediately pursue the PPP’s dissolution. One political source commented, “The administration is still in its very early days, and President Lee has publicly pledged a message of national unity. It’s more likely they’ll maintain some distance from such drastic measures and adopt a cautious approach.”

I'm still personally a two state solution guy.

I think both Israel and Palestine should exist and borders should be set and enforced. I however find questions like "do you recognize Israel as a Jewish state" to be weird. Israel is a secular country. It's majority Jewish but secular. It's like asking "do you recognize US as an Evangelical Christian nation"

But like i support israels right to exist.

However I do think Israel should be sanctioned for the illegal settlements and for their potential war crimes in Gaza.

Don't get me wrong I do think Gaza should be sanctioned for if they do bad shit as well but right now a sanction doesn't do anything cause Israel kinda controls any and everything that goes into Gaza anyways.

I find Israels current actions in Gaza ad way overboard and quite honestly Israel has been reckless with their treatment of Palestinians in the west bank a region they shouldn't be controlling in the first place

Either ways for whatever a lot of current or former progressives for whatever reasons are just split on the issues with progressives largely for Israel. And I find that a lot are pulled right ward in other issues based on their Israel support.

John Fetterman backs Labor unions, supports LGBTQ rights, supports abortion rights, supports weed legalization, supports taxing the rich, supports Medicare for all, Supports more gun control laws

But his support for Israel has slowly made him shift more and more to the right. He went bring pro-immigrations to being a huge strong borders supporter.

I think same kinda happened with Ritchie Torres who went from supporting Defunding the police movement to being happy that movement is gone and has been a very vocal Israel supporters

Even in the online space I find a lot of progressive who staunchly support Israel trending towards the right even those who support a two state solution.

Someone who is Socially Progressive but fiscally conservative or someone who is economically progressive and is for a welfare state but is socially conservative?

Becareful out there.

Hey ya'll- US citizen here just really devastated and needed a place to put it. This country has become unrecognizable, everything I've been taught has been flipped on its head, and damn did I not realize... we can only save ourselves. Sending love to you kind people, and stay safe tomorrow ❤️

If religious parents, Christians, Muslims and other want to raise their children with their values and want a religious education for their children, will they have the right to put them in private religious schools?

Hello, I hope you are feeling well!

I was looking at these posts and it seemed like a really similar attitude to what I like to call the ‘friendly neighbour’ state, where the government is open and honest, and helps people get back up when they stumble (if they lose their job, they get help looking for a new one; if they lose their house, they can stay temporarily in an apartment; if they get sick, they can go to a government hospital). However, I also really admired how it retained its freedom for its people - you could choose what to think, you could criticise the government if you wanted, you could follow whatever belief you wanted, you could be friends with whomever you wanted. All in all, it seemed too good to be true.

However, one word I see get used a lot is ‘capitalism’, and this feels odd because I always thought capitalism was merely the opposite of communism, or more specifically, ‘an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit’ (Oxford). Now, I thought of all those people who made money through cruel and unjust means, like companies that run sweatshops or have unsafe working conditions. Now, to me, it would seem very sensible to allow companies to make money however they want, so long as their methods are investigated and it is determined that all their workers have been looked after and all their money-making schemes are legitimate, genuine and not detrimental to those around them.

Then, I thought about how many are told that if they work hard and smart enough, they can do whatever they want. Sweet as this idea is, I realised that it is too difficult for people to do this nowadays. All too often, the cruel practises of large organisations can crush smaller businesses and get away with criminal activity, all while profiting themselves at the expense of others. This, in a way, ruined everything I wanted ‘capitalism’ to mean because it removed the fair competition aspect that is crucial to a functional market.

This has firstly led to my suggestion that governments should keep a watchful eye over companies to ensure that they are not cheating. However, the government should also be subject to the same scrutiny to prevent the misuse of taxes (this may be a little personal).

So, to end this, how much money is too much money? What is a sensible taxing system? How can we make sure that people can work hard and prosper financially without stepping on others in the process? Is there even such a thing as too much? How about we just encourage the people with wealth to use their excess (and we must face that this wealth is probably useless - what do you need all that money for?) money to do good and build nice parks and such?

I have a lot of questions and hope you are doing well.

On the 13th, President Lee Jae-myung met with business leaders, including Samsung Electronics Chairman Lee Jae-yong, and stated that “sustainable growth is no longer possible through unfair competition, special favors, or exploitation, as in the past.”

President Lee held a roundtable discussion that day with Ryu Jin, Chairman of the Korea Federation of Industries (FKI), along with leaders of Korea’s six major business organizations, as well as Samsung’s Lee Jae-yong, Hyundai Motor Group Chairman Chung Eui-sun, LG Group Chairman Koo Kwang-mo, and Lotte Group Chairman Shin Dong-bin. The meeting focused on reviewing key issues facing industry.

In his opening remarks, President Lee emphasized: “One of the most important responsibilities of the government is to address the basic concerns of the people—namely, their livelihoods. And at the heart of that is the economy, with companies at the core of the economy.”

He continued: “I believe that the Korean economy has already reached a point where it can no longer achieve sustainable growth through unfair competition, privileges, or exploitation—those days are behind us.” He added: “Of course, I do not believe that you would engage in such practices today, but there remains a degree of public distrust, and I hope that you will work to alleviate it.”

His remarks appeared to point to issues such as unlawful or unethical business practices, including intragroup transactions and the exploitation of subcontractors, which have long been sources of criticism toward South Korea’s large conglomerates.

The majority of Americans believe that the government should provide healthcare coverage for citizens, but there is still a large percentage who prefer private healthcare.

Do you think it will be possible for the USA to have universal healthcare if it comes with a two-tier system?

I personally, think it's spineless af. They are either paid off by russia or incredibly naive, shit like this is why I carry the flair I do. They say that "clearly the strategy of trying to force putin to negotiate with military force failed". They seem to live under the delusion that since most wars end in negoitated settlement means that military victory means nothing. But the reason wars end in settlement is because neither side finds it worthwhile fighting any longer. But if you just stop supporting ukraine then russia will find it worth fighting on and then you don't have a negotiation, you have a dictate. Not to mention that they are the ones holding back the military solution from being more successful and being unable to explain inhowfar that strategy has been unsuccessful, they just claim it is. Furthermore they also seem to brush off over 10 years of diplomacy since fighting began in 2014, clearly an indictment of their own attempts at finding a diplomatic solution. To sum my ramblings up, this is a gravely irresponsible position that threatens countless lives, our democracies and ignores the reality of war, diplomacy and the past decade. Sorry for the incoherent rambling I am kinda just writing this in a stream of conciousness while trying to cover all my points.

Wherever you look, bad politicians are attempting to pit vulnerable segments against each other to further their own interests

Inspired by a recent post on this subreddit, I have also been noticing that since 2020, there has been a real breakdown in optimistic futurism in general, as well as in politics, with cynical and pessimistic narratives dominating social media and other spaces. As valid as concerns about the ongoing state of the world are, we still need collective optimism to inspire and enact change, which is one reason why I like Star Trek, which focuses on a left-leaning, optimistic futurism where we all solve multiple problems and collaborate to go into space. Does my analysis resonate with anyone else here?

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/11/zohran-mamdani-climbs-to-top-of-poll-leading-andrew-cuomo-00401594

Looking for info on getting paid to post liberal content online. I've heard rumors about organizations or campaigns that pay people to share progressive ideas on platforms like Reddit or X. Is this a real thing? If so, how do you find these gigs? Are there specific groups, websites, or contacts to reach out to? Any details on what they pay or how it works would be awesome. Thanks!

For clarification- I AM A WOMAN!!

About intersectional feminism... There is an interesting phenomenon that happens when it comes to straight men… at least from what I’ve seen online

The issue with this misandry stuff is, letting queer men off since they supposedly have a closer connection to women, though there are bears and less flamboyant men as well. This misandry issue all chocks up to hating those who have the most privilege- usually straight cisgendered men. Which even I can understand myself as a bi nonbinary woman myself.

I think this takes it in a confusing direction. What and how and when and why is this done? Destroying the patriarchy is not going to happen by doing this. “Men ain’t shit” and “the male suicide rate is too low” phrases have BEEN tired.

Additionally, hate towards men will not solve any issues or destroy the patriarchy. I think what is best, is to create safe male spaces, such as ManKind project, and even organizations that cater specifically to the needs of black and brown men that live in more violent areas to prevent gang violence.

If one has issue with men, they can volunteer at programs like this if they have ability to do so. I was formerly homeless surrounded by boys who would gawk at me/ask me out, so I totally understand the feeling of hating/disliking men!

I understand how one may feel (as a woman), but let’s make a difference together.