this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2025
399 points (95.0% liked)

Uplifting News

16765 readers
151 users here now

Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews (rules), a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news—in text form or otherwise—that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good, from a quality outlet that does not publish bad copies of copies of copies.

Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fort_burp@feddit.nl 4 points 11 hours ago

Aw man, just when not supporting Capitalism became illegal :/

https://jacobin.com/2025/10/trump-classifies-anti-capitalism-as-a-political-pre-crime

Capitalism has always needed lots of support from the government in order to work (and I think we hurt Capitalism's feelings).

[–] 33550336@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

I love the uplifting news

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 13 points 21 hours ago

More like “those who want to see 10% more socialism in their capitalism are feeling cautiously optimistic that the Democratic Party might change slightly.”

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 50 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Capitalism is not the opposite of socialism in fact the people in the picture advocate for nordic style socialism which is very much capitalism based just with strong safety nets.

[–] MITM0@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago

So........ social democracy ?

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works 36 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Nordic Style socialism is actually called social democracy. Americans are somehow latching onto the term given to them by the right.

[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

Americans don't know the difference between socialism and communism, and both makes them piss their pants in fear.

[–] DarkAri@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Hopefully they will realize that the best America has ever been outside of racial and social issues is when FDR was president who was basically a social Democrat, although he preferred the term progressive and new nationalist. The decades after his economic reforms were the greatest time in American history, and then the Republicans got power again with Nixon and started to dismantle all of it, by the time Regan was in office, he killed organized labor and cut taxes on corporations leading to the current situation of hyper Inflationary debt based economics.

[–] fort_burp@feddit.nl 2 points 11 hours ago

It's important to remember that the New Deal was a compromise between the Capitalists and the Labor Unions / Communists. There has to be a far left threat to Capital for the status quo to move to the left at all. That has been absent in the USA for decades (like you said, starting around Nixon time) which partially explains how far right the USA has moved with decline in labor's share of profits, increasing wealth inequality and now all the way to fascist violence.

[–] BanMe@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This is exactly what needs to happen again. A bold progressive president who DGAF and builds some monumental new social programs and revives a strong welfare state, taking back the word "welfare" because it's A GOOD thing to not watch your citizens starve to death in the street, and we once knew this.

[–] fort_burp@feddit.nl 2 points 11 hours ago

It’s important to remember that the New Deal was a compromise between the Capitalists and the Labor Unions / Communists. There has to be a far left threat to Capital for the status quo to move to the left at all. That has been absent in the USA for decades (like you said, starting around Nixon time) which partially explains how far right the USA has moved with decline in labor’s share of profits, increasing wealth inequality and now all the way to fascist violence.

You will never get a president that just enacts sane social policies without a strong left, and that means organizing and Labor Unions.

[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

Then Republicans get back into power and revert all the progress...

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works 2 points 21 hours ago

The American left completely fails to use this. They will harp on socialism endlessly instead.

[–] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

The right didn't give us "social democracy". You're very confused.

[–] stinky@redlemmy.com 5 points 20 hours ago

I think he meant that the right gave us the fear-word "socialism"

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

The right calls everybody who just wants healthcare a socialist. Wanting healthcare is not socialism.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Not Americans, American media which is all completely controlled by oligarchs.

[–] chilicheeselies@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Capitalism works best with strong rules in place to prevent psychopaths and sociopaths from expanding too large.

[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (3 children)

But those rules inevitably fail because under capitalism wealth always consolidates under the psychopaths and sociopaths. Like, there’s no way to have capitalism and not have that happen. It’s part of the fundamental structure of private ownership of capital.

[–] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

You know what stops that from happening?

A politically engaged populace. The vast majority of Americans just don't care.

[–] EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Limit the amount of capital that can be individually owned. Wealth cap. Sociopaths are going to sociopath, make it so they can't have more money than a government and there wouldn't be so many problems.

[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

The cap needsto be way, way lower. You don't need to to have more money than a government to buy a politician or buy media. And I think that small steps is all it takes for a class of the society to progressively take more and more power as they work to influence people and remove regulation.

[–] FatCrab@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wealth cap paired with a wealth floor and UBI, and we're really cooking.

[–] EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Absolutely agree!

[–] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

It should just be a continuing, progressive income tax. No breaks, no loopholes, no tax evasion. The left is focusing on a single, arbitrary number and it's a bad idea.

[–] EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago

I'd argue it's an idea that's easy enough to convince others to vote for. Anything with "tax" in it, has and will be weaponized. Realistically, a wealth cap may not be the best solution, but its the only one simple enough that propaganda has a hard time twisting. It's an easy sell to those with a 5th grade reading level.

[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Ok, institute a wealth cap and the people who have hit it will just bide their time until people get complacent, then start exerting power to roll it back. It happens with every reform and regulation that put limits on private ownership of capital. What we really need is to abolish private ownership entirely.

[–] FlyingSpaceCow@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

That's not just money, but any form of power (in every system over time). Fighting it seems to be the eternal struggle.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Fully agree. Capitalism with strong safety net and social oversight is a really good system.

  • Social safety net promotes risk taking for businesses, grows economy and balances society against extremes
  • Social oversight prevents entities from gaming the system. There has to be a human dungeon master behind every system as every system can be gamed and corrupted within the rules of it. So external oversight is needed.

People like to hate on capitalism but capitalism + social oversight is really the best system.

[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (10 children)

Hard disagree. Any system that allows private accumulation of capital will create a class of wealthy individuals who then use their wealth to dismantle checks and balances. It’s inevitable.

[–] bss03 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think that if you make enough things democratically controlled, and have a proper secret ballot, that you can prevent wealth accumulation from being able to subvert democratic will.

It doesn't solve "tyranny of the majority", tho.

[–] Tuuktuuk@piefed.ee 5 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I've been wondering how the media could be regulated to not become a populist hellhole.

If the government starts telling what the media can write and what it cannot, we are quickly in a very bad place.
But at the same time, yellow press is a cancer. It seems that people all around prefer interesting newspapers over factual ones. Newspapers that add a bit of extra flavour to their articles sell a lot better than purely factual ones, because they are "less boring". And then that destroys democracy. I wonder how that should be avoided!

[–] bss03 4 points 22 hours ago

I agree regulating speech for this purpose is not a good fit, and more likely to be abused than useful.

I think society has to really double-down on critical thinking skills, particularly around verifying sources and identifying bias, including your own cognitive biases that are inescapable. Of course, authoritarians of all stripes, but particularly religious ones, don't like this so frequently interfere with public education efforts along those lines. CFAR has problems, but their "core mission" of "explore and practice better ways of thinking" is a good one and some of their resources can be valuable.

But, we also have to figure out how to provide spaces where people can let down their guard and escape the hostile environment AND get people (like myself) to use them (instead of doomscrolling, e.g.).

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

If you can keep it

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

Exactly! Every widget that sells well leads the inventor to think they can effectively run societies. How the hell does anyone make that leap?

[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

From the American point of view anything that even dares to suggest the possibility that there might be limitations to corporations' liberty to freely exploit and consume the population and their environment is communism, anarchy, heresy, and terrorism., and anathema to capitalism, democracy, and Freedom®(some limitations might apply).

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

I hope America tries a bit of socialism next because they clearly have the power to do so. The billionaires will not pack up and start leaving, I just don't see that ever happening. Especially when there are clear examples in California that is outcompeting every other state despite having higher taxes and more social programs.

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 99 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Until we start seeing some socialists in positions of power, passing socialist policies, I'm going to respectfully disagree.

They're right that capitalism is out; but look around. Socialism isn't in. Fascism is.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago

"Passing socialist policies" would require a majority in Congress. What you have right now, is a growing list of socialist politicians currently holding office. And they are having an impact on the direction things are heading.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] random_character_a@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Due to history, many East-Europeans (and US apparently) seem to understand socialism as communist dictatorship, because soviet puppets liked to call themselves that.

if you say "democratic socialism" everybody seems to understand it more as the Nordic model.

Political propaganda really likes to use that confusion.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

For me, it’s simply that socialism is a sliding scale.

Did you help out the grandmother that had fallen off her mobility device on the sidewalk? Congratulations, you’re partly SOCIALIST. She didn’t pay for that assistance and yet you gave her value anyway.

[–] danekrae@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Or as the republicans will call it: Anti-capitalism.

[–] mienshao@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I actually like that term better. Hell yeah, anti-capitalism!

load more comments
view more: next ›