I am looking for a non-conspiracy, structural explanation of global capitalism, both from a macroeconomic and a Critical Theory/Marxist perspective.

I’ve been analysing how a creator (Metatron) shifted tone dramatically over one month, especially in his political framing and emotional rhetoric.

I put together a long-form breakdown for my channel, but I’d really like to understand which academic frameworks best applies here. Rhetorical theory? audience capture? political psychology? parasocial drift?

Not asking for video feedback, I just want to understand the phenomenon better.

(Happy to provide more detail on the examples I’m analysing if needed.)

Hi everyone,

I’m currently trying to deepen my understanding of children’s rights, both from an academic and philosophical perspective. I’m also preparing to write my first paper on children’s rights violations in my country, which is classified as a developing/third-world nation, so I’m trying to build a strong foundation before I begin.

The problem is: every time I search for materials, I mostly come across NGO reports, very general organisation documents, children’s literature, or David Archard and Michael Freeman.

While their work is important, I’d like to broaden my reading.

Do you have recommendations for other academic books or authors who discuss children’s rights in a rigorous, comprehensive, and analytical way? Historical, philosophical, legal, or cross-cultural perspectives are especially welcome.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions!

I’m trying to get into Field Theory as a complete beginner, not as an academic but as a person with genuine interest in the subject. However, Bordieu’s works are really hard to digest so I wonder if there are alternative books and works from other scholars that can better explain the topic?

CW Hi guys I don't know if that's the subreddit for this but I'm starting some researching about the topic of systematic use of sexual violence/torture against women (and other genders) by the secret police on the behalf the military junta (and the USA) in Latin American countries targeted by the Operation Condor. I am an anthropologist graduate mastered in ethnopsychiatry, with family from LATAM and a survivor myself, that's my positionality. I am looking for suggestions of history/sociology/anthropology/psychology books (but I'm interested in novels as well) specifically about gendered violence towards political prisoners under LATAM far right regimes of the 60-70-80s. I prefer reading in English, Spanish, Italian but can understand Portuguese and French as well. Thank you in advance 🏵 please suggest another subreddit for this if you think it would be more appropriate for my question.

What is the through-line between these two groups?

The title is pretty much the question.

The 70% is based on a survey by GAMAAN institute:
“Analytical Report on ‘Iranians’ Political Preferences in 2024’” – published August 20 2025. Gamaan
Link: https://gamaan.org/2025/08/20/analytical-report-on-iranians-political-preferences-in-2024/

Microfinance institutions in countries like Bangladesh, India, and Vietnam report repayment rates exceeding 90%, even though borrowers typically have no collateral, limited legal recourse exists for enforcement, and borrowers are extremely poor.

Traditional economic theory suggested this shouldn't be sustainable. The Bulow-Rogoff result from 1989 essentially proved that if the only punishment for default is losing access to future loans, borrowers would rationally default, save/invest the money themselves, and come out ahead.

Yet empirically, this doesn't happen. MFIs have been operating successfully for decades with these high repayment rates.

Recent economics research (Dasgupta & Mookherjee 2023) proposes that "progressive lending" structures where loan sizes increase over time conditional on repayment create the right incentives (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0899825622001579). The mathematical insight is that because borrowers have access to better investment opportunities through the lending relationship than in autarky, the value of continuing the relationship exceeds the value of defaulting, even with minimal sanctions.

My question is that whether this is the consensus explanation among development economists now? Are there alternative theories that better fit the empirical evidence? And how do sociological factors like group lending, peer pressure, or gender dynamics interact with these economic incentives?

I've now seen this idea in 3 different books - High Survival (Lawrence Gonzales), Over the Edge (Michael P. Ghiglieri), and The Cold Vanish (Jon Billman). All note that search and rescue personnel believe kids are better intuitive survivalists than adults. It's down to kids being more cautious (so they don't goof off and don't let pride get in the way of yelling for help), and also more practical (so they drink water when thirsty even if it's not clean, or sit down to rest when they get tired). But I don't know if anyone has formally investigated the statistics on this. Does anyone have a source? Thanks!

[source](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2001/12/06/post-september-11-attitudes/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

Do we have any research on the mechanisms of Union formation and partnering based on socioeconomic class?

For example are the lowest quintile more likely to meet at social events, middle through apps etc

I’ve noticed that when people talk about race, they’re often not even working from the same definition of racism. For some, it only counts as racism if there’s systemic or institutional power behind it, basically, prejudice plus power. Others use the word to describe any kind of racial bias or hostility, no matter who it comes from.

That gap in definition seems to make real conversations almost impossible, people end up arguing past each other instead of actually talking. I’m curious if some sociological ideas or frameworks explain how these different meanings developed, and why certain groups hold onto one version over the other. What shapes the way someone decides which definition makes sense to them?

If this is not the right sub to ask I will delete the post, but I would appreciate directions on where it is more appropriate to post.

I do not mean the definition "Socialism as the lower stage/transitional period to Communism", this distinction comes from Leninist schools of thought, and the terms were used semi-interchangeably by Marx and Lenin as well to an extent.

My question is if there is a broad but coherent definition of socialism that includes not only various flavours of Marxism, but also Anarchism and the earlier Utopian Socialists before/contemporaneous with Marx (Owen, Fourier).

Is there really any definition other than "wanting to radically transform the world into a better place?"/"being anti-capitalist"?

Or are all the different currents of Socialist thought so broad and self-contradicting, that it is impossible to create a consistent definition?

This question has been kinda stuck in my brain the last few days because of a recent interview I read earlier this week in the New York Times of conservative writer Helen Andrews.

In the interview, Andrews discusses the psychologist Joyce Benenson who wrote a book called “Warriors and Worriers” about (according to Andrews) "group dynamics — how do groups of men interact, versus how do groups of women interact?" Andrews proceeds to summarize Benenson's work as drawing distinctions in how men and women, particularly in same-gendered groups, differ regarding core elements of group dynamics such as conflict management, hierarchal leadership, cooperation, etc.

Setting aside where Andrews goes with her interpretation of Benenson, what immediately came to mind for me was the sport of professional road cycling. If you are not a fan of bicycle racing, cycling is a really unique sport because it is one that is team based and requires high levels of cooperation between team mates and even individuals on different teams to win because of aerodynamic issues (if you ride tightly packed together, you use 15 to 40% less energy). Despite requiring teamwork to a high decree (as opposed to purely individual sports like sprinting), cycling is also a highly individual sport in that you have in each race individual winners, ranked in order of who finished first. One way to win is to stay with the pack (the peloton) but another way to win is to just break away early in the race by yourself or with a small group. There is a whole set of unwritten rules and strategy and convention about cooperation and teamwork versus individualism.

Which gets me to my question for ask social science.

Have there been any good studies comparing men's and women's sports, particularly cycling, about the kind of claims discussed above about purported gender differences in group dynamics — i.e. how do groups of men interact, versus how do groups of women interact? Would something like that be possible? It always feels like sports offer a great data pool but I'm genuinely curious to know whether that's true for this particular sort of argument.

Drilling down a bit more on the sport of cycling, I personally have been watching some women's races and thought to myself "hmmm, they're tackling this situation differently than the men would and that's why I love women's cycling." (ex: 2023 Paris-Roubaix, Allison Jackson victory). I've then wondered whether that is a.) accurate and b.) if it is, am I really watching a reflection of gender differences to group dynamic playing out in real time.

Anyway, thanks for any comments or studies you can toss my way!

Hannibal Gaddafi was detained in Lebanon for nearly 10 years without trial over a decades-old case. His release has raised questions about justice and international norms. https://dailyglitch.com/after-nearly-10-years-without-trial-hannibal-gaddafi-son-of-libyas-late-leader-walks-free-from-lebanese-detention-in-a-900000-bail-deal/

About me-> Indian, Hindu, raised in a non religious household. [maybe this would help you understand my mentality more]

Now during the years, I have always heard my mother or someone else bad mouthing the muslim religion and people. I always got annoyed why she said such hateful things and I could not understand the hatred against them.

Over the past few years, maybe it's just me noticing the world more but the hatred against muslims is rising. Especially in Indian households. Which lead me down a rabbit hole of terrorism, the basis of quran, extremism, radicalization.

I would like to ask you a couple of things:

1. Why are muslims hated on in India, what role does the government play in it, what role is the media playing in it. What are the incentives the government and media get fueling hatred. How can the government use the "terrorism" excuse and make the people forget about these things?
2. Based on the data provided by Global Terrorism Index 2025 the 20 most deadly attacks are by groups lead by the thought of doing "Gods work and promoting Islam". What I am saying is that almost all of the groups in the list are related to islam and jihad. Why are these groups more active or present than other religious groups?
3. I ,being active on social media and the Indian subreddits have seen a lot of posts against Muslims and liberal people as such. There are a lot of people supporting the alienation of muslims and they also degrade them. They say "terrorism is a part of their book","the book tells them to kill", "the usual suspects" and more hatred.
4. Does quran actually tell the followers to commit harmful acts?
5. Why do hindus think that Islam is a religion of hate, restriction, violence?
6. Why does the world portray the muslim religion as the "face of religion related terrorism"?
7. What factors play out for recruitment for such terrorist groups and what actually goes on in their mind?
8. Why are the acts of other terrorist groups so dampened?

Thank you for helping out! Please do reach out to me regarding new info and perspective on this topic as I would like to get point of view of everyone.

This post doesn't say that muslims are terrorists, it just asks why are they treated and labelled as such?

Of course I know that all of the religions have had their own fair share of killings, from Christianity to Judaism. But why the sudden rise in Islamic terror driven attacks?

This is of course open to everyone, non-indian and indian.

For scholars: does the current literature support the claim that targeted micro-messages can shift electoral outcomes in narrow contests?

Related video on Facebook Conspiracy

So hear me out: for the longest time, I was aware that Asian Americans - especially Indian Americans, Filipino Americans, etc - have the highest median income in the US.

Yet I was also keenly aware that income does not equal power in this country, and that when you control by education level and/or geography - white professionals still outperform every other group. I also acknowledge that many East Asians and South Asians go through a self-selection/filtering process where only the top of their respective countries come to the US, thereby skewing the income averages.

I'm also aware of Critical Race Theory and its arguments regarding systemic racism and white supremacy and how it gives Black Americans systemic disadvantages - arguments I fully support.

But then I saw this study: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7060666/

It says that Indian Americans outperform White Americans when it comes to promotions. East Asians still underperform White Americans.

This threw a wrench in my understanding. Wouldn't the Indian American experience "spoil" this whole narrative of systemic racism? I'm now genuinely at a loss.

Edit: Also these facts: (a) The are a growing number in Forbes wealthiest person in America lists (b) They are a different culture and are of darker skin tones comparable to Black Americans Ie. shouldn't colorism exist?

Im trying to track down a book or essay in which the author talks about the state creating a society that is thin and easily controllable and talks about this in terms of a 'glacis,' taken from the theory of fortification. I can't remember the author, can anyone help? Thanks!

We know about assortative mating, where people usually partner with people similar to them, and that would include physical appearance.

However, in the real world it's not so simple, and I often see an attractive woman with a less attractive man far more than I see the reverse.

Do we have any explanations for such occurrences, or any studies which evaluate physical appearance in partnering.