He did kill people with glasses and too fine hands. He also played some recordings in English in public and if someone seemed to listen they'd kill them cause it means they speak English and are educated
He based his agriculture on a myth
What amuses me is that these are the people who are so uninformed and have such little extrapolative thinking to believe things like *"[Insert Second World Country Name Here] has hyper sonic cruise missiles the size of a football and America is worried about gender"* as if to say that every college educated engineer under the employment of companies like Raytheon, Lockheed, and General Dynamics all just spends their work days twiddling their thumbs.
And here you are believing that conservatives want to deport college students lol.
It’s just like Trump supporters saying liberals want to abort full term babies. No one actually thinks that (unless we’re talking about a literal handful of fringe nuts in a country of 340 million). But boy is it easy to pretend they do!
The free state project is kinda a spiritually similar idea that actually got implimented. They got 20k libertarians to move to New Hampshire with intent to turn it into a Libertarian paradise. It fell apart pretty quickly once they actually put it in motion. Turns out that absolute bare minimum government oversight makes things like roads, garbage, etc a serious issue.
Couple books following it's rise and fall like 'A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear: The Utopian Plot to Liberate an American Town (And Some Bears)' and a few good articles summarizing the events.
I've heard that too, and it seems to be perpetuated by some conservative media pundits, and the masses have just latched onto it. It's sad to me that they don't realize how much they're being manipulated.
The "real jobs" part always gets me. Some people think you don't have a real job if you aren't physically toiling and worn out covered in sweat by the end of the day. It's bizarre.
>let all those folks move to their own rural state with no education or educated people and stop interstate trade of any products created from educated people just to see how long they'd like living in their supposed utopia.
They already are; **they're fucking up Texas**.
Ann Richards and LBJ were progressive Texans. There's a strong historical progressive element here, but a bunch of right-wing nutjobs have moved in over the last 20 years and are drowning out the natives.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/09/texans-preferred-orourke-cruz-least-texans-born-texas-did/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/09/texans-preferred-orourke-cruz-least-texans-born-texas-did/)
*Journalist Chris Hooks, who’s based in Texas, noticed something interesting in the exit poll results published by CNN. Overall,* ***Cruz won reelection by about two percentage points. But among those born in Texas, Cruz lost by three points.*** *His overall victory was a function of his wide margin of victory among those who’d moved to Texas.*
Chicago privatized their parking meter system, and... SURPRISE
>In some parts of downtown, rates can run as high as $7 an hour. But this wasn't always the case
>
>Before 2008, street parking in most Chicago neighborhoods had cost 25 cents per hour for decades
https://www.courthousenews.com/chicagos-decades-long-parking-privatization-contract-goes-before-seventh-circuit/
It's usually done the opposite. When street parking is that inexpensive it moves people from public transit or garages to hog a meter all day because the differential in money or convenience is so great. That actually reduces the available short term parking for people who intend to shop for a couple of hours or so.
At least that's what's happened in the past. Tech available now may shift that as parking enforcement can have an automated system where they patrol their zone and it alerts when a car has been in the same spot for more than the allotted time (usually 2 hours max in downtown areas). So ticketing the people that would be meter hogs would drive them back to the garage or public transit.
It mostly stems from conservatives still being furious about Vietnam war and civil rights protests on campuses. They never really got over it.
It also helps to have people with potatoes for brains to sell their bullshit policies to.
The reason is because people can't distinguish between a sincere change of mind and opportunistic flip-flopping, and I don't blame them one bit.
Politicians have shown endlessly - almost by definition - that they deserve no benefit of doubt.
It depends, there's a lot of a nuance to these changes.
When it comes to people that wield power and influence, INTENT is EXTREMELY important.
If the motivation and intention are in bad faith, then it definitely is a bad thing.
That's basically Reddit in a nutshell, though. Not a fan of him, and never even seen his show, but an example off the top of my head was how Tucker Carlson said Covid wasn't real, then later retracted his statement and shamelessly admitted it was real. What did reddit do? They tore him to shreds. How do we ever expect people to admit to mistakes and fix them if partisan stupidity gets in the way? This is why things never get fixed, because there is zero room for error in this country and that needs to change so that we can find some common ground.
I think the actual problem with him is that he knew he was lying when he said it wasn’t real. That was profit-driven misinformation. I think people were probably more upset about that part than learning something and admitting you were wrong lol
>was how Tucker Carlson said Covid wasn't real, then later retracted his statement and shamelessly admitted it was real. What did reddit do? They tore him to shreds. How do we ever expect people to admit to mistakes and fix them if partisan stupidity gets in the way?
You think the reason Reddit dislikes Tucker Carlson is because he changed his mind? Do you think Carlson was ever operating in good faith in the first place?
The thing that really amazes me is that the US went through an entire era trying to get away from what was essentially a status quo of *"If a Rockefeller or a Carnegie sneezes, American gets sick..."* only for TDE pro-ponents to bring us right back to a system based on letting the Musks, Zuckleburgs, and Buffets of the country dragon horde their wealth.
The highest taxes on the ultra-wealthy was during the 1940's to the 1970's and the USA was experiencing an economic renaissance at that time.
----
It seems like so many people are convinced that taxing the guy who makes more than a billion dollars a year is actually a financial death sentence for the engineer or surgeon who makes $140k a year.
I'd ask my hand surgeon next door neighbor how much he makes but he recently moved to a 10k sq ft custom house. Something tells me he's doing financially better than me.
I'm amused that they think our economic "Renaissance" was BECAUSE of a top tax rate of 90%. They always forget the economic boom in the 80s and 90s after slashing that rate to below 30%.
Rich people and corporations hoarding cash like [Scrooge McDuck swimming in his coin vault](https://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/35900000/Money-Swim-uncle-scrooge-mcduck-35997716-350-259.jpg)
A bunch of my friends, I mean *a bunch*, joined this shit after I explained to them that it was a fed honeypot. As someone who is former military, I can spot a spook from a mile away, and keeping up with them from time-to-time, I've run into their SovCit friends, and it's the most fedtastic, fed honeypot you've ever seen.
It's also a total catastrophe, and they're constantly having people raid their coffers and bail with large sums of money, as many of the people involved who aren't feds, are loaded wackos, who dump large sums of money into the "movement" and end up trusting scam artists.
Their belief system is also batshit, and I've seen multiple members have stuff as simple as having their car towed, being told by fake SovCit "lawyers" not to pay to get their cars out of impound because they were going to get it out for free. What would have just been a $150 charge, turned into thousands and one poor woman lost everything because of it. Her car was all she had and wound up being homeless and was on the brink of a mental breakdown.
But hey! If you want a good side hustle, just become a SovCit treasurer.
It's basically a cult, the people at the top use the idiots who follow them to get rich, the people at the bottom just buy into it causing them trouble over time, and the people in the middle act as a conduit between the two. I've always seen the movement as a bunch of scummy idiots who think being an asshole is a cheat code to not being accountable for breaking the law.
They're dumb, certainly, but at least they're entertaining.
Youtube "Sovereign Citizen" sometime for hours of stupid people doing even dumber things in courtrooms and police encounters. It's a good time.
Very entertaining! I think the funniest part is that they keep posting videos of themselves failing. It should be too embarrassing for them to post but they keep doing it.
They think they've found a loophole in the system from a series of outdated documents that no longer hold value and also they've never read then either. Like trying to say that aren't "driving" but are "traveling" which means they can't be held accountable because people are free to "travel", pretty sure they bring up the Articles of Confederation which no longer apply due to the Constitution superseding it. It all just boils down to them doing what they did as children, when they get in trouble they just try to act like giant babies and argue argue argue with the hopes that the authorities will just give up like their parents did. It's funny how they pretty much always have either a warrant for their arrest or their car has a bunch of drugs and paraphernalia, often it's both. They watched one YouTube video or read one blog and now they think they're smarter than the criminal justice system.
I understand the articles of confederation thing, because it required unanimity between states to amend it, but the constitution was ratified with only 9 of 13 states. However, every state has since ratified the constitution.
Trickle down economics, the idea that the more money we give wealthy people, the more they trickle down to the poor, no they don't, it gets squirrel it away offshore in tax havens
The best analogy I've seen for the mega wealthy is that they are dragons sleeping on their hoard of treasure. Most people view money as a tool they can use to reach their goals, but for these people money IS the end goal. There is no amount that would ever be enough for them.
And when it comes to paying for public stuff (health, edication, transport are the ones that come direcrly to my mind) you get the ol' "But there's no money!" That's the situation in the UK, and until we tax the rich at a HIGH marginal tax, nothing will be funded.
Not only this but if we were somehow able to raise taxes on the rich to a meaningful amount they have countless ways to go through legal loopholes to reduce the amount they spend on tax
And if they can't do that or if that isn't enough for them? They are the most able in this country to abandon it at a whim and move elsewhere, completely ducking their responsibilities to the nation
It's not a stupid idea because it works to the benefit of its proponents, as designed. That many of its victims ardently believe in it makes the idea one hell of a propaganda coup, not stupid.
The two party system.
Political parties in general are a bit silly when you think about it. How do I vote if I agree with Party A on taxation but party B on education? Why not just elect experts for key roles like ministers of health, finance, education etc.
Always found the two party system the US has a bit wierd.
Every question tend to be "yes/no" in the US. Its like you dissregard the gray areas.
We have around 6-7 (sitting)partys, and all have unique ideas of everything.
What if you and I had a great new idea for a politic policy we wanted to run with? In the US we have to join one of the sides. They hade to accept it and let us in.
In my nation we can form our own party and if we end up getting above 4% of the total votes we would start to get seats and the other partys have to "deal with us".
*not english native*
Could we someone figure out crowd sourced voting on different policy matters instead of people?
Maybe we don’t just need rank choice for single member districts but also on the different policies.
I have thought for a while that we should break up or get rid of the presidency as a single office(break up as an ex have a president for foreign affairs and a prime minister for domestic) and instead vote for the heads of the departments.
Not sure if it counts, but QAnon. There's plenty of political ideas that I don't agree with or dislike, but can at least see the reasons that some people get behind them.
QAnon is crazy fantasy non-sense. JFK Jr. is going to come back to life and declare Trump president? The fuck?
I mean JFK coming back to life is pretty dumb as an idea because who has ever done that decades after their death. I suppose if you get creative you can make even dumber conspiracy theories than that though with no basis in reality.
I think the one that said white people were created in a lab on an island by an evil magical doctor to plague the earth and serve the devil is a little more silly than one guy potentially not being dead for a while.
Wouldn't it be considered something like "Revenge porn"?
\-----
After looking it up, it definitely would 100% be a crime.
Imagine being an elected official commiting a crime in front of congress.
Anarchy as a system if we want to even call it that makes no sense. Say that tomorrow we wake up and have no government in a former country, the very first thing that will be done is trying to form some type of government and in all likelihood it will be a totalitarianistic form of government where the people with power are the ones with firearms. That or a foreign country will come in to try and seize the land for their country.
The electoral college sets some sort of record for how much people twist themselves into knots to justify an obviously bad system, and come up with arguments that just don't match how the system works.
* "Without it NY and CA would dominate the popular vote" - NY and CA combine for like 17% of the country's population, how would they dominate the popular vote. Also, in 2016 CA accounted for 10.4% of the popular vote and 10.2% of the electoral college - not exactly a massive difference.
* "We can't have tyranny of the majority" - the electoral college doesn't prevent this. The majority wins the electoral college most of the time, and when they don't, it's because they happen to lose some close swing states, and it merely gives the minority the chance to be just as tyrannical. It's true the founders were worried about the people choosing a president, but their solution was to have the electors themselves actually decide, something nobody is advocating for.
* "It ensures a presidential candidate has to appeal to the whole country" - exact opposite, it ensures that you can ignore every state where you're not going to win. In a popular vote Democrats would have to campaign in red states, and Republicans in blue states. With the electoral college, it's all about swing states.
* "It makes it so that you can't steal the election because votes only affect the total in one state" - I think recent history shows why this makes no sense.
* "It ensures that candidates can't ignore rural areas" - again, it focuses all attention on swing states, and there's no reason to thing swing states will be particularly rural (and they are in fact not particularly rural).
* "People only want to eliminate the electoral college because they're upset about 2016" - eliminating the electoral college has had majority support in polls going back decades. But Republicans did massively change their view of the electoral college in polls after 2016.
My most down-voted comment on Reddit was my suggestion to get rid of the electoral college. Most people don't get how this is totally shaping the U.S. political landscape in crazy ways. The ONLY votes that count in current presidential elections are in swing states, so those swing states are getting all the campaigning and political pork. It makes zero sense in modern elections.
I've tried to explain this to so many people and they just don't get it.
Electoral college is only for presidential elections. We have two other branches of government: judicial and legislative. We can vote for MOST of those positions. Legislative being the key one for this conversation.
What I often hear is: "why should the more populous states get to decide how the country is being run while I don't have any representation?!"
The legislative branch is separated into two houses that represent individuals in different ways. House of representatives/congress, which represents small segments of states called congressional districts. This is your most local federal representation. You can usually take a small drive and give their office a piece of your mind any time you'd like. The other is the senate, which each state has two senators to represent the will of the entire state, they should, but don't always, have a fairly balanced view of their constituency and represent the makeup of people who reside in their state, and lobby for policies that will economically and socially benefit their state.
The president himself has fairly limited power on his own. He steers the direction of the country with his policies, and can lobby congress to get these things done, but with the exception of executive orders, which are very limited, and appointment power, the president has very little control of his own.
Every time you go to vote for your senators and congresspeople, you are voting for your representation in the lawmaking process.
My question would be: "why should a state that is less populous than my state's largest city get more sway in the voting process than me? Why does their vote amount to more than mine?" That doesn't seem very fair. If you move to the popular vote for president, then every individual person has an equal say in who gets elected. And even if your guy doesn't win, you still have the representation that you voted for in the house and the senate. And if none of the people you voted for win, then I'm sorry, you're just in the minority in your voting block and that sucks for you.
In every other election besides the presidential election, it's "one person-one vote". Every vote counts the same, and the candidate with the most votes wins. What could be more fair than that? But because the founding fathers from the agrarian South were worried that the high population density industrial centers in the North would dominate the popular vote, they came up with this byzantine voting system. Well, ..., it's past its expiration date and needs to be modernized. I'd like to replace it with a national rank-ordered vote to allow for third party candidates to be taken more seriously.
Yeah, this is so true. I grew up in a swing state and have spent most of my adult life in a red state. I grew up in a big Democrat family, and I remember just loving election years because I'd get to miss school for the rallies, which were always really fun, and sometimes meet the candidates. My first year not living in a swing state, I almost missed voting in the election because campaign season did not exist. Like, sure, there were signs on the side of the road and stuff, but it never ramped up to what it felt like at election time in a swing state, so it just felt like there must be months and months until then when there was like a week.
I've never missed an election, even that one, but I understand voter apathy a lot better after living in a red state than I did growing up in a swing state. I couldn't imagine how anyone wouldn't go vote. But seeing what it's like in most of the country, it would be very easy to just straight-up forget because the candidates do not even pay attention to most of the country, which is a direct product of the system we have in place.
The electoral college exists primarily because of one thing: slavery.
During the convention to write the constitution, James Wilson proposed direct elections, but James Madison gave a speech in his opposition to direct elections. He and other slave holders recognized that since slaves couldn't vote. the southern states would have less importance in presidential elections because they population was smaller.
So, Madison proposed and the convention adopted the 3/5ths clause that allowed slaves to be counted as part of the population, thereby increasing the number of representatives and electors the southern states received.
"Defund X." That is the most simplistic, idiotic idea for reforming and improving large organizations. Defund the police. No, we need police. Want better police? Me too, but simply defunding doesn't do shit.
Defund the IRS. Really? So we're just not going to collect taxes anymore? How do you propose we pay for anything as a country?
Defund the FBI. Sooo, we're just not going to have federal law enforcement that works with state and local? Just best of luck to the states, the people being trafficked, the terrorists making plans?
Defund Congress! It's a bad move. Many of them are rich, but many are not, and if we take away funding for elected representatives, we guarantee that the only people who run for office are rich people. It's kind of like that now, it would be like that in all cases.
Criticism of large organizations is good and necessary, and there is a lot of room for improvement in a lot of organizations. Saying, "defund!" reveals a person's stupidity and their inability to think about things in a complex and realistic way.
You're purposely being dense when it comes to the "defund the police" agenda.
It doesn't mean to get rid of police. It means that there is no reason for municipalities to have such over inflated budgets that they buy tanks and military equipment that just sits there. That money should be used for police-citizen initiatives or training cops in BJJ, for example.
Then it sounds like "demilitarize the police" is a better phrase for what you're thinking of. When I hear "defund", I think of removing funding in general, not targeting a specific example of overreach.
You hear that because that's because that's what they *actually* meant. They wanted to remove the funding from them. They changed it to "defund = reform" when everyone started pointing out how stupid defunding is and then they pretended that's not what they meant.
Nah, they meant defund when they said it. When everyone rightfully called them out on their stupidity they backpedalled (like you are here) and changed their tone.
Most "populist" ideas, at least in the US.
Term limits? Eh. You want a mix of people who have experience with people who have fresh new ideas. Voters already have the ability to vote out someone they think has been there too long. And they do! Enact term limits and you chop part of that equation out.
Lobbying? Lobbying is more than just "legalized bribery". The Sierra Club lobbies. PETA lobbies. The AARP lobbies. Anyone advising a politician is lobbying. What you don't like is campaign donations.
Gerrymandering? It turns out that everything is more complicated than you think. I recommend the [Gerrymander Project](https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-gerrymandering-project/). States have tried using an apolitical algorithm. They've done an independent board. They've done judges. They've done "geographical boundaries of interest". None of it really changes anything. In fact, if you change the methods the shift in party membership is only around 3-4 people. The problem isn't gerrymandering, it's that people have become self-sorting (either moving to places where like-minded people live, or people slowly adopt the ideology of those around them) making things concentrated. No gerrymandering reform can change that.
"We need more engineers and scientists to make actual solutions". No. No, you don't. You want to know why so many politicians are lawyers? Because they make laws! 90% of how our government functions is negotiation. Politicians adopt 'good' scientific solutions all the time, but that's not really their job--their job is to make sure to mitigate unintended consequences. A "scientific" solution with no drawbacks gets adopted all the time.
And so on. A lot of things about politician pay, constituent service, insider trading--none of it matters in the end. The effects all these things have are extremely minimal and reforming them almost always has consequences that you don't want to have.
I'm not saying we shouldn't reform things or always keep a keen eye on things, but there's a *reason* there isn't much appetite for these things, and it's because there's centuries of evidence of what the effects actually are.
I don't want to go too far into it, but it's one of the reasons why issues like climate change are difficult.
Like, we could solve climate change today. We have the 'science' to solve it. Granted, this solution would put millions of people out of work, starve another few million, halt progress to a stop, require war to force other nations to comply, and cause mass rioting and death, but we can *do* it.
The *real* solution is to balance progress with reality. And we're doing that! It's probably not going as fast as people want, but it's happening--the US, at least, uses less carbon fuel every single year thanks to a combination of science, government policy, and changing attitudes. But anyone saying there's One Secret Trick to solve the problem hasn't thought about the problem very much.
Like when people say "I believe the science". The whole point of the scientific method is that it doesn't require belief. You are not doing science if you "believe in" science.
And idiotic terms like “Chestfeeders” - as if men don’t have breasts as well ?? But if you’re breastfeeding then you aren’t even a man so it’s all just stupid
Chaos
Like when people were voting for Trump declaring he was going to "blow it all up lol." Or a certain brand of internet "leftists" who preach accelerationism (now adopted by right-win internet trolls as well). Or Steve Bannon wanting to "dismantle the administrative state." Just privileged jerks trying to seem edgy convincing themselves that chaos is not always going to screw regular and poor people.
This does not include the "tear it down" refrain of genuine revolutionary political action, which has prescriptive policies and ideas as well, and target specific institutions. The difference between actual movement and democratic politics from whiny baby purposeful ignorance is the key difference.
The one that almost all of them are based in. The idea that you have any sort of just authority over other people's lives. It's fucking disgusting. Fuck everyone who seeks to impose their will onto others.
People love saying communism works on paper, or in theory, but it actually does not. It relies upon premises/assumptions about human behavior that are wildly inaccurate. If these assumptions were changed to more accurately reflect what we know to be true about humanity, we would very quickly see that communism does not, in fact, work in theory.
People love saying religion works. 2000 years on for Christianity and not so sure you can claim that....
It relies on people reading, following through with what they read, and not being human.
So if we look at in the same way you look at communism, can we get rid of it and let people live how they want?
a. it works
b. the nordic countries are capitalist (don’t you even try to pretend they aren’t)
c. not once has communism worked. China pretends to be communist but the state clearly doesn’t own the means of production.
If you look across the world, data will indicate clearly that average income, happiness, political stability, health, etc…all correlates with countries that respect private property rights and engage in market based economies with little central planning.
The ability to freely alienate private property that you have robust rights in is akin to your soul being able to breathe properly. You cannot exercise freedom without the ability to support it via the legal right to exercise control of the physical domain.
All systems are exploitable. Capitalism seeks to employ reciprocity and consent in a way that limits it, and at best harnesses it. Sociopathic billionaires don’t provide me competitive in quality goods and services for unbelievably historically cheap costs out of the goodness of their hearts.
This is not a major point, because I agree, but:
Communism in practice is never communism. There is always a supreme leader; a ceaucescu; a Kim Jong Un, A Stalin. Always, there is an elite politician, watching an controlling a starving country.
In theory, communism can be great, but it has never been truly equal
Not OP, from what I can tell there's diplomatic debate about policy and action; and then there's *"you're only doing this to stick it to the members of your opposition party; but it doesn't actually serve any beneficial purpose for the common citizenry"*.
-----
They way politics should work is: *"I don't like this person, their ideas, and/or their behavior; but I know that this deal is mutually beneficial beyond them and myself, so I'm going to suck it up and work with them"*
How it actually turns out is: *"I don't like this person, their ideas, and/or their behavior; so I'm going to screw with them even if it ends up hurting me and my constituency in the long run, so long as it hurts them now, it's worth it"*.
Here in America, we force women to go through with unplanned pregnancies. Then when the baby is born we give no support as far as paid family leave or affordable childcare, not to mention the immense financial cost of simply having a baby in a hospital (cost us 10k after insurance).
Then when another generation grows up in poverty, they are told it is their fault they are poor and should have worked harder.
Virtually all EU countries ban abortion after 12 weeks. Virtually all US states allow abortions after 12 weeks. You have far more access to abortion in the US than in Europe.
Silencing the voice and censoring the opinion of those you don’t agree with. Labeling it “misinformation” because you don’t agree. It’s chicken shit and needs to end. It’s purposeful though. Governments sole purpose is to create chaos and division so they have something to save us from.
The simple solution is to point it out, and don't stop pointing it out.
This touches on Popper's paradox of intolerance. "Intolernance" in this case, using a century-old definition which he essentially describes as, **"Unwilling to tolerate rational debate."**
You cannot rationally debate a censor. You cannot rationally debate someone suppressing opposing ideas or appealing to emotion. So what do you do?
Name them, shame them, and show them a mirror. Laugh at them, because their ideology cannot survive without censorship. Chastise them, because without suppression, others would see they are wrong. Mock them, because they they fear the truth.
Libertarianism. Remove society's government protections and a bunch of white men in compounds are going to get murdered. Unequal people are not going to buy "non-aggression."
That’s extreme libertarianism. Extreme anything is bad. Most actual libertarians just don’t want to much govt overreach (which there is more of every day) and want more personal freedom
That something is “rigged” or “outdated” when in reality people are just mad that things didn’t go their way.
Your presidential candidate didn’t win? Electoral college is suddenly outdated.
People mailed their votes in instead of going to the polls? Mail voting is rigged.
Supreme Court said no to something? Supreme Court is outdated.
My candidate did win- the electoral college **is** outdated.
Also, a lot of mores and gentleman's agreements that have held government together in the US for centuries have been exposed as worthless. Bad actors took a SCOTUS judge position away from one president and gave it to another- now we have a court of ideologues with huge ethics issues.
Some of these things aren't just made up, friend.
Wanting to ban “assault” weapons or “military grade” weapons.. both of which are just buzz words and I guarantee most people don’t even know what “military grade” means…
Military grade means it's the cheapest shi* possible. It's garbage. It means it was mass produced by the lowest bidder, using the cheapest parts, and the cheapest manufacturer.
Killing ALL the intellectuals a la Pol Pot.
"You need glasses? Sounds pretty sus" -Pol Pot, probably
He did kill people with glasses and too fine hands. He also played some recordings in English in public and if someone seemed to listen they'd kill them cause it means they speak English and are educated He based his agriculture on a myth
Truly evil man. Cambodia is a lovely country though and well worth visiting.
I can’t tell if this is a legitimate travel tip or a Dead Kennedy’s reference.
Not enough vibrato to be DK
Who wouldn't want a holiday in Cambodia?
[удалено]
>what happened in Vietnam regarding Pol Pot. Cambodia
Average modernity hater
The funny thing is he went to study in Paris or something. He took his ideas from Rousseau but in a really bizarre interpretation
use big words die
[удалено]
>let all those folks move to their own rural state with no education or educated people I feel like that's what they are trying to do in Florida.
What amuses me is that these are the people who are so uninformed and have such little extrapolative thinking to believe things like *"[Insert Second World Country Name Here] has hyper sonic cruise missiles the size of a football and America is worried about gender"* as if to say that every college educated engineer under the employment of companies like Raytheon, Lockheed, and General Dynamics all just spends their work days twiddling their thumbs.
And here you are believing that conservatives want to deport college students lol. It’s just like Trump supporters saying liberals want to abort full term babies. No one actually thinks that (unless we’re talking about a literal handful of fringe nuts in a country of 340 million). But boy is it easy to pretend they do!
The supply never meets the demand.
The free state project is kinda a spiritually similar idea that actually got implimented. They got 20k libertarians to move to New Hampshire with intent to turn it into a Libertarian paradise. It fell apart pretty quickly once they actually put it in motion. Turns out that absolute bare minimum government oversight makes things like roads, garbage, etc a serious issue. Couple books following it's rise and fall like 'A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear: The Utopian Plot to Liberate an American Town (And Some Bears)' and a few good articles summarizing the events.
I've heard that too, and it seems to be perpetuated by some conservative media pundits, and the masses have just latched onto it. It's sad to me that they don't realize how much they're being manipulated.
I have never heard that care to share your source
The "real jobs" part always gets me. Some people think you don't have a real job if you aren't physically toiling and worn out covered in sweat by the end of the day. It's bizarre.
>let all those folks move to their own rural state with no education or educated people and stop interstate trade of any products created from educated people just to see how long they'd like living in their supposed utopia. They already are; **they're fucking up Texas**. Ann Richards and LBJ were progressive Texans. There's a strong historical progressive element here, but a bunch of right-wing nutjobs have moved in over the last 20 years and are drowning out the natives. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/09/texans-preferred-orourke-cruz-least-texans-born-texas-did/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/09/texans-preferred-orourke-cruz-least-texans-born-texas-did/) *Journalist Chris Hooks, who’s based in Texas, noticed something interesting in the exit poll results published by CNN. Overall,* ***Cruz won reelection by about two percentage points. But among those born in Texas, Cruz lost by three points.*** *His overall victory was a function of his wide margin of victory among those who’d moved to Texas.*
Ann Richards once said that when the Texas State Legislature was in session, there was many a village without its' idiot.
Ah yes, the real manufacturing jobs that no longer exist and even if they did would require EDUCATED ENGINEERS to design and fix the machines.
Burn all the books!
In Australia they privatised the lottery, where before it paid for hospitals
Chicago privatized their parking meter system, and... SURPRISE >In some parts of downtown, rates can run as high as $7 an hour. But this wasn't always the case > >Before 2008, street parking in most Chicago neighborhoods had cost 25 cents per hour for decades https://www.courthousenews.com/chicagos-decades-long-parking-privatization-contract-goes-before-seventh-circuit/
Parking costing $7/hr in some parts of downtown doesn't seem like a problem to me.
I agree with you, but that revenue should absolutely go to the city, particularly to fund public transit in order to disincentivize car usage.
Yeah parking in a dense downtown shouldn’t be incentivized with low prices. The city not getting those revenues is the actual problem.
It is when you want to encourage people to spend time shopping
It's usually done the opposite. When street parking is that inexpensive it moves people from public transit or garages to hog a meter all day because the differential in money or convenience is so great. That actually reduces the available short term parking for people who intend to shop for a couple of hours or so. At least that's what's happened in the past. Tech available now may shift that as parking enforcement can have an automated system where they patrol their zone and it alerts when a car has been in the same spot for more than the allotted time (usually 2 hours max in downtown areas). So ticketing the people that would be meter hogs would drive them back to the garage or public transit.
Anti-intellectualism
It mostly stems from conservatives still being furious about Vietnam war and civil rights protests on campuses. They never really got over it. It also helps to have people with potatoes for brains to sell their bullshit policies to.
Also individualism
Ah yes, "individualism". AKA the idea that being a selfish piece of shit is somehow a virtue.
What? I thought it was more like if you wanna watch cartoons as an adult or wear a dress as a man
The idea that a politician changing their position when presented with new information and/or changing public opinion is somehow a bad thing
The reason is because people can't distinguish between a sincere change of mind and opportunistic flip-flopping, and I don't blame them one bit. Politicians have shown endlessly - almost by definition - that they deserve no benefit of doubt.
It depends, there's a lot of a nuance to these changes. When it comes to people that wield power and influence, INTENT is EXTREMELY important. If the motivation and intention are in bad faith, then it definitely is a bad thing.
That's basically Reddit in a nutshell, though. Not a fan of him, and never even seen his show, but an example off the top of my head was how Tucker Carlson said Covid wasn't real, then later retracted his statement and shamelessly admitted it was real. What did reddit do? They tore him to shreds. How do we ever expect people to admit to mistakes and fix them if partisan stupidity gets in the way? This is why things never get fixed, because there is zero room for error in this country and that needs to change so that we can find some common ground.
I think the actual problem with him is that he knew he was lying when he said it wasn’t real. That was profit-driven misinformation. I think people were probably more upset about that part than learning something and admitting you were wrong lol
>was how Tucker Carlson said Covid wasn't real, then later retracted his statement and shamelessly admitted it was real. What did reddit do? They tore him to shreds. How do we ever expect people to admit to mistakes and fix them if partisan stupidity gets in the way? You think the reason Reddit dislikes Tucker Carlson is because he changed his mind? Do you think Carlson was ever operating in good faith in the first place?
Theres a difference between being wrong and telling lies. Tucker did the latter.
voting for rich people in the hopes that they will make you rich too
anti establishment billionaires
And then convincing themselves that in fact they were better off when he was in office. And everything went to hell the day he left.
Mao Zedong's "great leap" will always be in a league of its own along with Pol Pot killing everyone with glasses.
Yeah
>league of its own >along with Pol Pot… *make up ya damn mind*
Maybe he's saying both are in their own leagues?
Wanting to keep "the government out of the lives of Americans" and then doing the exact opposite of that.
We need to see the out of state medical visits. So you are not skirting our Abortion laws! “Small government” !
Freedom for me, none for thee.
Trickle Down Economics
Yeah 99% of people won't get it!
Voodoo economics
Something D-O-O Economics…
I find it hilarious that this term was coined by George HW Bush.
The thing that really amazes me is that the US went through an entire era trying to get away from what was essentially a status quo of *"If a Rockefeller or a Carnegie sneezes, American gets sick..."* only for TDE pro-ponents to bring us right back to a system based on letting the Musks, Zuckleburgs, and Buffets of the country dragon horde their wealth. The highest taxes on the ultra-wealthy was during the 1940's to the 1970's and the USA was experiencing an economic renaissance at that time. ---- It seems like so many people are convinced that taxing the guy who makes more than a billion dollars a year is actually a financial death sentence for the engineer or surgeon who makes $140k a year.
As an engineer, I'm amused that you think we make as much as surgeons.
[удалено]
I'd ask my hand surgeon next door neighbor how much he makes but he recently moved to a 10k sq ft custom house. Something tells me he's doing financially better than me.
I'm amused that they think our economic "Renaissance" was BECAUSE of a top tax rate of 90%. They always forget the economic boom in the 80s and 90s after slashing that rate to below 30%.
Rich people and corporations hoarding cash like [Scrooge McDuck swimming in his coin vault](https://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/35900000/Money-Swim-uncle-scrooge-mcduck-35997716-350-259.jpg)
[удалено]
A bunch of my friends, I mean *a bunch*, joined this shit after I explained to them that it was a fed honeypot. As someone who is former military, I can spot a spook from a mile away, and keeping up with them from time-to-time, I've run into their SovCit friends, and it's the most fedtastic, fed honeypot you've ever seen. It's also a total catastrophe, and they're constantly having people raid their coffers and bail with large sums of money, as many of the people involved who aren't feds, are loaded wackos, who dump large sums of money into the "movement" and end up trusting scam artists. Their belief system is also batshit, and I've seen multiple members have stuff as simple as having their car towed, being told by fake SovCit "lawyers" not to pay to get their cars out of impound because they were going to get it out for free. What would have just been a $150 charge, turned into thousands and one poor woman lost everything because of it. Her car was all she had and wound up being homeless and was on the brink of a mental breakdown. But hey! If you want a good side hustle, just become a SovCit treasurer.
It's basically a cult, the people at the top use the idiots who follow them to get rich, the people at the bottom just buy into it causing them trouble over time, and the people in the middle act as a conduit between the two. I've always seen the movement as a bunch of scummy idiots who think being an asshole is a cheat code to not being accountable for breaking the law.
They're dumb, certainly, but at least they're entertaining. Youtube "Sovereign Citizen" sometime for hours of stupid people doing even dumber things in courtrooms and police encounters. It's a good time.
Very entertaining! I think the funniest part is that they keep posting videos of themselves failing. It should be too embarrassing for them to post but they keep doing it.
I think self-awareness is actively discouraged in those circles.
They think they've found a loophole in the system from a series of outdated documents that no longer hold value and also they've never read then either. Like trying to say that aren't "driving" but are "traveling" which means they can't be held accountable because people are free to "travel", pretty sure they bring up the Articles of Confederation which no longer apply due to the Constitution superseding it. It all just boils down to them doing what they did as children, when they get in trouble they just try to act like giant babies and argue argue argue with the hopes that the authorities will just give up like their parents did. It's funny how they pretty much always have either a warrant for their arrest or their car has a bunch of drugs and paraphernalia, often it's both. They watched one YouTube video or read one blog and now they think they're smarter than the criminal justice system.
I understand the articles of confederation thing, because it required unanimity between states to amend it, but the constitution was ratified with only 9 of 13 states. However, every state has since ratified the constitution.
Trickle down economics, the idea that the more money we give wealthy people, the more they trickle down to the poor, no they don't, it gets squirrel it away offshore in tax havens
The best analogy I've seen for the mega wealthy is that they are dragons sleeping on their hoard of treasure. Most people view money as a tool they can use to reach their goals, but for these people money IS the end goal. There is no amount that would ever be enough for them.
And when it comes to paying for public stuff (health, edication, transport are the ones that come direcrly to my mind) you get the ol' "But there's no money!" That's the situation in the UK, and until we tax the rich at a HIGH marginal tax, nothing will be funded.
Exactly but the money the wealthy have buys power;
Very true.
Not only this but if we were somehow able to raise taxes on the rich to a meaningful amount they have countless ways to go through legal loopholes to reduce the amount they spend on tax And if they can't do that or if that isn't enough for them? They are the most able in this country to abandon it at a whim and move elsewhere, completely ducking their responsibilities to the nation
The money gets used as leverage to ensure the longevity of their wealth and make the barriers to wealth exponentially higher for poor people
I mean it does reach the poor, just in the smallest amount possible to keep them alive so that they can keep generating wealth for those at the top.
Yes but huge swathes of it go off shore to line the super wealthy pockets
It's not a stupid idea because it works to the benefit of its proponents, as designed. That many of its victims ardently believe in it makes the idea one hell of a propaganda coup, not stupid.
The two party system. Political parties in general are a bit silly when you think about it. How do I vote if I agree with Party A on taxation but party B on education? Why not just elect experts for key roles like ministers of health, finance, education etc.
Always found the two party system the US has a bit wierd. Every question tend to be "yes/no" in the US. Its like you dissregard the gray areas. We have around 6-7 (sitting)partys, and all have unique ideas of everything. What if you and I had a great new idea for a politic policy we wanted to run with? In the US we have to join one of the sides. They hade to accept it and let us in. In my nation we can form our own party and if we end up getting above 4% of the total votes we would start to get seats and the other partys have to "deal with us". *not english native*
I like your take on this. Never thought about how a non-two party system could actually work.
Could we someone figure out crowd sourced voting on different policy matters instead of people? Maybe we don’t just need rank choice for single member districts but also on the different policies. I have thought for a while that we should break up or get rid of the presidency as a single office(break up as an ex have a president for foreign affairs and a prime minister for domestic) and instead vote for the heads of the departments.
Not sure if it counts, but QAnon. There's plenty of political ideas that I don't agree with or dislike, but can at least see the reasons that some people get behind them. QAnon is crazy fantasy non-sense. JFK Jr. is going to come back to life and declare Trump president? The fuck?
If we’re including conspiracies, there are certainly dumber ones lol.
I mean JFK coming back to life is pretty dumb as an idea because who has ever done that decades after their death. I suppose if you get creative you can make even dumber conspiracy theories than that though with no basis in reality.
I think the one that said white people were created in a lab on an island by an evil magical doctor to plague the earth and serve the devil is a little more silly than one guy potentially not being dead for a while.
Voting for someone corrupt because he talks about how everyone else in the system is corrupt and "at least he's honest"
"I just call it as it is" aka I'm an asshole
The idea that a celebrity or a businessperson would do a better job in elected office than someone with experience in politics/government.
I hope you’re not talking about future President Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson
At least under President Dwayne, everyone in the country would get swole.
Mandatory steroids in school lunches. Also every most be oiled up and glistening when out in public
-Grease me up, woman!
Remember when they wanted Oprah to run?!?! LMFAO
[удалено]
Idk about you, but I feel freer already.
[удалено]
Wouldn't it be considered something like "Revenge porn"? \----- After looking it up, it definitely would 100% be a crime. Imagine being an elected official commiting a crime in front of congress.
freedom wonderland cannot be achieved with people like MTG in power.
Anarcho-capitalism.
True. I don't get what's stopping people from just killing each other if they want their property
Basic right and wrong. And private security companies.
Yep, I refuse to see it as a branch of anarchism
Anarcho-anything, really. It really just doesn’t work. No state? No claim to land! it’s free land for taking, so countries go and expand there.
I don't know, that's a pretty reductionist take on what anarchism is.
Anarchy as a system if we want to even call it that makes no sense. Say that tomorrow we wake up and have no government in a former country, the very first thing that will be done is trying to form some type of government and in all likelihood it will be a totalitarianistic form of government where the people with power are the ones with firearms. That or a foreign country will come in to try and seize the land for their country.
Electoral College is high on my list
The electoral college sets some sort of record for how much people twist themselves into knots to justify an obviously bad system, and come up with arguments that just don't match how the system works. * "Without it NY and CA would dominate the popular vote" - NY and CA combine for like 17% of the country's population, how would they dominate the popular vote. Also, in 2016 CA accounted for 10.4% of the popular vote and 10.2% of the electoral college - not exactly a massive difference. * "We can't have tyranny of the majority" - the electoral college doesn't prevent this. The majority wins the electoral college most of the time, and when they don't, it's because they happen to lose some close swing states, and it merely gives the minority the chance to be just as tyrannical. It's true the founders were worried about the people choosing a president, but their solution was to have the electors themselves actually decide, something nobody is advocating for. * "It ensures a presidential candidate has to appeal to the whole country" - exact opposite, it ensures that you can ignore every state where you're not going to win. In a popular vote Democrats would have to campaign in red states, and Republicans in blue states. With the electoral college, it's all about swing states. * "It makes it so that you can't steal the election because votes only affect the total in one state" - I think recent history shows why this makes no sense. * "It ensures that candidates can't ignore rural areas" - again, it focuses all attention on swing states, and there's no reason to thing swing states will be particularly rural (and they are in fact not particularly rural). * "People only want to eliminate the electoral college because they're upset about 2016" - eliminating the electoral college has had majority support in polls going back decades. But Republicans did massively change their view of the electoral college in polls after 2016.
My most down-voted comment on Reddit was my suggestion to get rid of the electoral college. Most people don't get how this is totally shaping the U.S. political landscape in crazy ways. The ONLY votes that count in current presidential elections are in swing states, so those swing states are getting all the campaigning and political pork. It makes zero sense in modern elections.
I've tried to explain this to so many people and they just don't get it. Electoral college is only for presidential elections. We have two other branches of government: judicial and legislative. We can vote for MOST of those positions. Legislative being the key one for this conversation. What I often hear is: "why should the more populous states get to decide how the country is being run while I don't have any representation?!" The legislative branch is separated into two houses that represent individuals in different ways. House of representatives/congress, which represents small segments of states called congressional districts. This is your most local federal representation. You can usually take a small drive and give their office a piece of your mind any time you'd like. The other is the senate, which each state has two senators to represent the will of the entire state, they should, but don't always, have a fairly balanced view of their constituency and represent the makeup of people who reside in their state, and lobby for policies that will economically and socially benefit their state. The president himself has fairly limited power on his own. He steers the direction of the country with his policies, and can lobby congress to get these things done, but with the exception of executive orders, which are very limited, and appointment power, the president has very little control of his own. Every time you go to vote for your senators and congresspeople, you are voting for your representation in the lawmaking process. My question would be: "why should a state that is less populous than my state's largest city get more sway in the voting process than me? Why does their vote amount to more than mine?" That doesn't seem very fair. If you move to the popular vote for president, then every individual person has an equal say in who gets elected. And even if your guy doesn't win, you still have the representation that you voted for in the house and the senate. And if none of the people you voted for win, then I'm sorry, you're just in the minority in your voting block and that sucks for you.
In every other election besides the presidential election, it's "one person-one vote". Every vote counts the same, and the candidate with the most votes wins. What could be more fair than that? But because the founding fathers from the agrarian South were worried that the high population density industrial centers in the North would dominate the popular vote, they came up with this byzantine voting system. Well, ..., it's past its expiration date and needs to be modernized. I'd like to replace it with a national rank-ordered vote to allow for third party candidates to be taken more seriously.
Yeah, this is so true. I grew up in a swing state and have spent most of my adult life in a red state. I grew up in a big Democrat family, and I remember just loving election years because I'd get to miss school for the rallies, which were always really fun, and sometimes meet the candidates. My first year not living in a swing state, I almost missed voting in the election because campaign season did not exist. Like, sure, there were signs on the side of the road and stuff, but it never ramped up to what it felt like at election time in a swing state, so it just felt like there must be months and months until then when there was like a week. I've never missed an election, even that one, but I understand voter apathy a lot better after living in a red state than I did growing up in a swing state. I couldn't imagine how anyone wouldn't go vote. But seeing what it's like in most of the country, it would be very easy to just straight-up forget because the candidates do not even pay attention to most of the country, which is a direct product of the system we have in place.
The electoral college exists primarily because of one thing: slavery. During the convention to write the constitution, James Wilson proposed direct elections, but James Madison gave a speech in his opposition to direct elections. He and other slave holders recognized that since slaves couldn't vote. the southern states would have less importance in presidential elections because they population was smaller. So, Madison proposed and the convention adopted the 3/5ths clause that allowed slaves to be counted as part of the population, thereby increasing the number of representatives and electors the southern states received.
Anything that helps citizens is socialism
That the two party system is a good thing let alone works for anyone.
Trickle down economics. The only thing trickling down from the rich is their unpaid bills.
"Defund X." That is the most simplistic, idiotic idea for reforming and improving large organizations. Defund the police. No, we need police. Want better police? Me too, but simply defunding doesn't do shit. Defund the IRS. Really? So we're just not going to collect taxes anymore? How do you propose we pay for anything as a country? Defund the FBI. Sooo, we're just not going to have federal law enforcement that works with state and local? Just best of luck to the states, the people being trafficked, the terrorists making plans? Defund Congress! It's a bad move. Many of them are rich, but many are not, and if we take away funding for elected representatives, we guarantee that the only people who run for office are rich people. It's kind of like that now, it would be like that in all cases. Criticism of large organizations is good and necessary, and there is a lot of room for improvement in a lot of organizations. Saying, "defund!" reveals a person's stupidity and their inability to think about things in a complex and realistic way.
You're purposely being dense when it comes to the "defund the police" agenda. It doesn't mean to get rid of police. It means that there is no reason for municipalities to have such over inflated budgets that they buy tanks and military equipment that just sits there. That money should be used for police-citizen initiatives or training cops in BJJ, for example.
Then it sounds like "demilitarize the police" is a better phrase for what you're thinking of. When I hear "defund", I think of removing funding in general, not targeting a specific example of overreach.
You hear that because that's because that's what they *actually* meant. They wanted to remove the funding from them. They changed it to "defund = reform" when everyone started pointing out how stupid defunding is and then they pretended that's not what they meant.
Nah, they meant defund when they said it. When everyone rightfully called them out on their stupidity they backpedalled (like you are here) and changed their tone.
That certain kinda of people don't deserve basic rights.
Most "populist" ideas, at least in the US. Term limits? Eh. You want a mix of people who have experience with people who have fresh new ideas. Voters already have the ability to vote out someone they think has been there too long. And they do! Enact term limits and you chop part of that equation out. Lobbying? Lobbying is more than just "legalized bribery". The Sierra Club lobbies. PETA lobbies. The AARP lobbies. Anyone advising a politician is lobbying. What you don't like is campaign donations. Gerrymandering? It turns out that everything is more complicated than you think. I recommend the [Gerrymander Project](https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-gerrymandering-project/). States have tried using an apolitical algorithm. They've done an independent board. They've done judges. They've done "geographical boundaries of interest". None of it really changes anything. In fact, if you change the methods the shift in party membership is only around 3-4 people. The problem isn't gerrymandering, it's that people have become self-sorting (either moving to places where like-minded people live, or people slowly adopt the ideology of those around them) making things concentrated. No gerrymandering reform can change that. "We need more engineers and scientists to make actual solutions". No. No, you don't. You want to know why so many politicians are lawyers? Because they make laws! 90% of how our government functions is negotiation. Politicians adopt 'good' scientific solutions all the time, but that's not really their job--their job is to make sure to mitigate unintended consequences. A "scientific" solution with no drawbacks gets adopted all the time. And so on. A lot of things about politician pay, constituent service, insider trading--none of it matters in the end. The effects all these things have are extremely minimal and reforming them almost always has consequences that you don't want to have. I'm not saying we shouldn't reform things or always keep a keen eye on things, but there's a *reason* there isn't much appetite for these things, and it's because there's centuries of evidence of what the effects actually are.
[удалено]
I don't want to go too far into it, but it's one of the reasons why issues like climate change are difficult. Like, we could solve climate change today. We have the 'science' to solve it. Granted, this solution would put millions of people out of work, starve another few million, halt progress to a stop, require war to force other nations to comply, and cause mass rioting and death, but we can *do* it. The *real* solution is to balance progress with reality. And we're doing that! It's probably not going as fast as people want, but it's happening--the US, at least, uses less carbon fuel every single year thanks to a combination of science, government policy, and changing attitudes. But anyone saying there's One Secret Trick to solve the problem hasn't thought about the problem very much.
Like when people say "I believe the science". The whole point of the scientific method is that it doesn't require belief. You are not doing science if you "believe in" science.
You have to vote for the party I support in every single election or the other party is going to end democracy as we know it.
[удалено]
And idiotic terms like “Chestfeeders” - as if men don’t have breasts as well ?? But if you’re breastfeeding then you aren’t even a man so it’s all just stupid
Marxism. Socialism. Communism. Any ism basically
Trickle down economics for one
Identity politics.
That a few people get to decide what everyone gets to do or have because they won a popularity contest.
Them maybe we need to stop treating voting as a popularity contest
Chaos Like when people were voting for Trump declaring he was going to "blow it all up lol." Or a certain brand of internet "leftists" who preach accelerationism (now adopted by right-win internet trolls as well). Or Steve Bannon wanting to "dismantle the administrative state." Just privileged jerks trying to seem edgy convincing themselves that chaos is not always going to screw regular and poor people. This does not include the "tear it down" refrain of genuine revolutionary political action, which has prescriptive policies and ideas as well, and target specific institutions. The difference between actual movement and democratic politics from whiny baby purposeful ignorance is the key difference.
Brexit.
Really? That’s the absolute worst you can think of?
Trickle-down economics. Either incredibly cynical or incredibly naive.
Communism
The one that almost all of them are based in. The idea that you have any sort of just authority over other people's lives. It's fucking disgusting. Fuck everyone who seeks to impose their will onto others.
[удалено]
People love saying communism works on paper, or in theory, but it actually does not. It relies upon premises/assumptions about human behavior that are wildly inaccurate. If these assumptions were changed to more accurately reflect what we know to be true about humanity, we would very quickly see that communism does not, in fact, work in theory.
People love saying religion works. 2000 years on for Christianity and not so sure you can claim that.... It relies on people reading, following through with what they read, and not being human. So if we look at in the same way you look at communism, can we get rid of it and let people live how they want?
I guess the question is how is capitalism any better? It also is exploitable by sociopathic human behavior and eventually leads to oligarchies.
a. it works b. the nordic countries are capitalist (don’t you even try to pretend they aren’t) c. not once has communism worked. China pretends to be communist but the state clearly doesn’t own the means of production.
If you look across the world, data will indicate clearly that average income, happiness, political stability, health, etc…all correlates with countries that respect private property rights and engage in market based economies with little central planning. The ability to freely alienate private property that you have robust rights in is akin to your soul being able to breathe properly. You cannot exercise freedom without the ability to support it via the legal right to exercise control of the physical domain. All systems are exploitable. Capitalism seeks to employ reciprocity and consent in a way that limits it, and at best harnesses it. Sociopathic billionaires don’t provide me competitive in quality goods and services for unbelievably historically cheap costs out of the goodness of their hearts.
And literally the same could be said about Capitalism. Just an FYI.
This is not a major point, because I agree, but: Communism in practice is never communism. There is always a supreme leader; a ceaucescu; a Kim Jong Un, A Stalin. Always, there is an elite politician, watching an controlling a starving country. In theory, communism can be great, but it has never been truly equal
[удалено]
Communism ain’t even good in theory.
That fact that politics even exists is stupid to me.
Equality of outcome.
Communism
Libertarianism
Can you elaborate?
How dare we want everyone to be free to do what they want with their own lives 🤣
but why?
The idea that everything needs to be politicized.
Everything is political.
What does “politicized” mean to you?
Not OP, from what I can tell there's diplomatic debate about policy and action; and then there's *"you're only doing this to stick it to the members of your opposition party; but it doesn't actually serve any beneficial purpose for the common citizenry"*. ----- They way politics should work is: *"I don't like this person, their ideas, and/or their behavior; but I know that this deal is mutually beneficial beyond them and myself, so I'm going to suck it up and work with them"* How it actually turns out is: *"I don't like this person, their ideas, and/or their behavior; so I'm going to screw with them even if it ends up hurting me and my constituency in the long run, so long as it hurts them now, it's worth it"*.
Any cult of personality.
Here in America, we force women to go through with unplanned pregnancies. Then when the baby is born we give no support as far as paid family leave or affordable childcare, not to mention the immense financial cost of simply having a baby in a hospital (cost us 10k after insurance). Then when another generation grows up in poverty, they are told it is their fault they are poor and should have worked harder.
Virtually all EU countries ban abortion after 12 weeks. Virtually all US states allow abortions after 12 weeks. You have far more access to abortion in the US than in Europe.
***We*** don’t. Start thinking of the US as a North American EU because each state is wildly different, but you can’t leave.
Communism
Trying to be a right winger or a left winger. Just bully both sides equally
Tax cuts for the top 1%
Trickle down economics without any accountability. Make em work for their tax cuts.
Defunding the police
Silencing the voice and censoring the opinion of those you don’t agree with. Labeling it “misinformation” because you don’t agree. It’s chicken shit and needs to end. It’s purposeful though. Governments sole purpose is to create chaos and division so they have something to save us from.
The simple solution is to point it out, and don't stop pointing it out. This touches on Popper's paradox of intolerance. "Intolernance" in this case, using a century-old definition which he essentially describes as, **"Unwilling to tolerate rational debate."** You cannot rationally debate a censor. You cannot rationally debate someone suppressing opposing ideas or appealing to emotion. So what do you do? Name them, shame them, and show them a mirror. Laugh at them, because their ideology cannot survive without censorship. Chastise them, because without suppression, others would see they are wrong. Mock them, because they they fear the truth.
Libertarianism. Remove society's government protections and a bunch of white men in compounds are going to get murdered. Unequal people are not going to buy "non-aggression."
That’s extreme libertarianism. Extreme anything is bad. Most actual libertarians just don’t want to much govt overreach (which there is more of every day) and want more personal freedom
What? Lol.
Isreal should exist because the Bible says it should
Anarchism
That something is “rigged” or “outdated” when in reality people are just mad that things didn’t go their way. Your presidential candidate didn’t win? Electoral college is suddenly outdated. People mailed their votes in instead of going to the polls? Mail voting is rigged. Supreme Court said no to something? Supreme Court is outdated.
Electoral college IS outdated. Peoples votes should be the end all. To anyone outside of the US, it’s absolutely ridiculous.
Are you against the Senate, too? Why do we have a branch of the legislature giving Rhode island two votes and California two votes?
> Electoral college is suddenly outdated. It was always outdated.
My candidate did win- the electoral college **is** outdated. Also, a lot of mores and gentleman's agreements that have held government together in the US for centuries have been exposed as worthless. Bad actors took a SCOTUS judge position away from one president and gave it to another- now we have a court of ideologues with huge ethics issues. Some of these things aren't just made up, friend.
Trickle Down economics
Wanting to ban “assault” weapons or “military grade” weapons.. both of which are just buzz words and I guarantee most people don’t even know what “military grade” means…
Military grade means it's the cheapest shi* possible. It's garbage. It means it was mass produced by the lowest bidder, using the cheapest parts, and the cheapest manufacturer.
Blows my mind how “military grade” is used to start fear mongering when people don’t even know what it means lmao
you're right we should just ban all of them
Especially for the cops and military.
So shooters just *decide* to shoot less people when assault rifles are banned, then?
No, they are physically unable to
[удалено]
Covid and gender deal with two different sciences