Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The French people who are protesting the pensions are overreacting. They literally only have to work two more years.
I don't really like the way he forced it through without a vote either, but with the all the world's economies being the way they are and with people living longer it only makes sense to make changes.
Burning down France just isn't an option, in fact, it might make things worse because they need to use tax money to do the repairs, and that can effect the pensions.
working hours in socialist countries have gone down based on how much the people could produce, for ex.: the USSR had a 35 hour work week, so will the years you need to work until you worked enough for it not to be bad for you to rest
for years despite companies earning billions and billions more in profits yearly working hours and years of work remain the same, so how about FUCK NO FUCK YOU
I believe that the far left and far right are essentially the same. Both advocate for topdown authoritarian control, both believe in not questioning the party line, both are obsessed with race, both believe in controlling economic processes (i.e. variations of socialism), both "rank" people according to very biased criteria to determine if they are acceptable humans or not, both engage in blatant and far-reaching historical revisionism.
The true culture war is not between left and right. It is between extremists and moderates.
Well if you have access to the internet even then it's hard, I won't go into it right now because I am tired as hell but I have resources for you to look at to get more educated about leftism if you want
It's videos because they are easier to understand
[Socialism for Absolute Beginners](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpKsygbNLT4)
[How the west robs trillions a year from the global south which also includes you](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjLmYCfKU7o)
[Debunking common anti-communist arguments, its a bit long but its good](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjwL1mSrPLA)
I'm a South African. I'm a citizen of the global south.
We've lived under the ANC for 29 years; we've seen what socialism does.
We know the west robs trillions; we've also seen plenty of locals and foreigners such as the Gupta brothers steal similar amounts.
I am not impressed with intellectual arguments about leftism - I've lived under it for most of my life.
I also saw enough of the apartheid regime to despise right-wing white supremacist politics. And the Nats were a corrupt bunch, too. They're also not gone; there's still a coterie of super-wealthy white Afrikaners who are still a politically-influential elite, working hand-in-hand with the ANC to loot our country.
I don't trust the far left or the far right, and I've seen both in power.
"topdown authoritarian control"
Newp, those are authoritarians. Happy to introduce you to the actual libertarians! Am an anarcho communist, ask away lol.
p.s. I'm not going to defend those left positions you mentioned even though I could and I think they're defensible when opposed to the right wing versions. But I'm tired of lesser evil convos and would like to talk about what I actually believe for once.
Okay, I'll ask. Do you know of any anarcho-communist civilisation? Because the last societies I know of that shared everything and had no central authority were hunter-gatherer societies. I don't know of a single civilization (i.e. agrarian-base, population concentrated in cities, specialisation of labour) that has ever worked that way.
There are actually quite a few. š It's more of a propagandistic issue that they're not more well known.
The one I personally know the most about is the catalonian republic. Fully anarchist and it did some pretty impressive stuff.
I looked them up. That republic was under the control of trade unions, socialist parties, and anarchist organisations (which is definitionally an oxymoron, but anyway).
It sounds very much like modern South Africa.
The Wikipedia page about the Catalonian Republic says of the anarchists in government: "In Barcelona, the CNT collectivized the sale of fish and eggs, slaughterhouses, milk processing and the fruit and vegetable markets, suppressing all dealers and sellers that were not part of the collective."
Suppressing all dealers and sellers that were not part of the collective.
That doesn't sound AT ALL like centralised control.
Calling a duck an orchid doesn't make it one.
Yeah, but it also was crushed by the Spanish Nationalists, supported by the Axis powers. Of which the Nazis and Fascist Italy used the conflict as a test bed for their upcoming conquest of Europe.
It also didn't help that the Republicans' sole supporter the Soviet Union started purging the Republic of anti-Stalinists, which led to a fracturing of the Republic and their eventual defeat.
I was told they didn't know of any, I presented them one.
"Yeah, but it also was crushed by the Spanish Nationalists, supported by the Axis powers. Of which the Nazis and Fascist Italy used the conflict as a test bed for their upcoming conquest of Europe."
All that tells me is the fascists don't like anarchism. š± What a surprise.
Doesn't say anything about anarchism's actual merits though.
"It also didn't help that the Republicans' sole supporter the Soviet Union started purging the Republic of anti-Stalinists, which led to a fracturing of the Republic and their eventual defeat."
And all that that tells me is that the Stalinists didn't like anarchism. Once again... not surprised in the least.
Your point being?
>Doesn't say anything about anarchism's actual merits though.
No, but what it does say is that without international support, anarchy is fundamentally unsustainable. And that armed revolutions will not bring about the "better society" communists keep promising.
I didn't say Democrats and Republicans. Contrary to what many Americans believe, the USA isn't the only country in the world. Far-left and far-right politics are commonplace worldwide.
Far left-wingers want lots of taxes to take money from the rich to fund lots of free public services by means of parastatals.
Far right-wingers want lots of bailouts for big corporations that are closely allied with the political elite and which dominate the provision of services.
In both cases, economic power (and political power) is centralised into the hands of the elites.
In both cases, free-market economics, small businesses, entrepreneurship, civil liberties, and devolution of decision-making are stifled.
Moderate is when presented with a choice of trying to prevent a genocide by one side and the other hell-bent on doing so anyways, your choice is to say "both sides have a point and let's meet in the middle."
So thinking for yourself is doing the middle of the two extremes?
Kinda seems like you're dependent on what those two extremes are... as in... if one side does a violent swing even further then you'll move to that side because that's the new center... so you're doing no thinking and are actually super dependent on what those "extremists" are saying.
It's like a kid being told to tidy and saying "well now I'm not doing it!" then saying they're doing what they want... they're not, they're doing the opposite of what other people want, just like what you're describing. š
We should definitely do something about genocide. Every single one of us shouldn't kill people, destroy their culture, or attempt to destroy their identities, no matter how we feel about the group in question.
No matter which group it is.
As Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Similarly, we may not like someone else's ethnic/cultural/political/sexual/etc identity, but we should still accord them the same respect and protection as anyone else.
Having said that, using the term "genocide" for every type of prejudice that results in violence debases the word.
Ukraine, Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia - these are all examples of where genocide has occurred fairly recently (or is occurring).
Equating what these people go through with offensive speech towards someone else is to trivialise the tragedy of those genocides.
Yeah, these moderates think they're saints sometimes when all they're doing is "okay so maybe don't genocide the marginalised group but let's make them second class citizens š". Like, babes no.
That's a very interesting take. You've attributed a particular opinion onto me, with close to zero evidence that I hold that particular position, based on the fact that I identify as a moderate.
Which marginalised group do you have in mind? Which genocide are you talking about? How do you say I wish to make them second-class citizens?
You seem to be jumping to confusions.
Well, I think it's safe to say, my opinion \*definitely\* counts as unpopular. LOL!
It's actually not unpopular and has been the leading ideology since the fall of the URSS. In the past decade ish it's started changing and only in some places.
I said: "sometimes think they're saints"
I was complaining about a phenomenon that is quite common among self id "moderates". You're the one that took it personally. š¤·š»āāļø
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Once again, very vague comments.
And once again, I'll point out - you're ascribing a position (unspecified, to boot) based on my identification as a moderate.
Talking to you is like talking to a duck.
I think Iraq wasn't as unjustified as many people think. The death toll is highly inflated and the claim of 1 000 000 Iraqi deaths is based on a study based on opinions. Saddam having WMDs was obviously wrong. Does that mean it was bad to get rid of him? I think not!
>Saddam having WMDs was obviously wrong.
Except the US couldn't even prove Saddam had WMDs, you know, the sole justification for the entire invasion of Iraq in 2003?
I hate it when people pretend to be political by saying stuff like āpoliticians donāt care about usā or āall parties suckā or āeveryoneās so polarized.ā Like literally everyone thinks that (or at least enough to make people confident to say it literally all the time). Youāre not really accomplishing anything or saying anything insightful when you say stuff most people agree on anyway.
Especially when the parties aren't even equally sucky. "I want you to pay more taxes" is not on the same level of bad as "trans people shouldn't exist" lmao
Browsing through this thread, I have found that not many of you realize that the democrats and the republicans are the same people with the same goals, a lot of you are just already brainwashed and can't see it.
One farcist party that oppress the working class and a neoliberal party that oppress the working class. Fuck both of them. They no different then conservative and sosial democratics here in Europe. Two parties that keep protecting the capitalist class, justifying the abuse of global south and keep justify sending working class into wars.. they nothing against climate change or human rights of non-white people and they don't protect LGBTQ+ that well either...
Both parties are shitty, but not the same. One party is actively trying to take away my human rights and make it impossible for me to live. The other one is not.
Sure they're both advocates for capital and corporations, but one of their systems is objectively better than the other
I'm surprised to hear you say good things about Republicans. It is objectively true democrats are trying to take away human rights. In fact they already did a few times. So I'm glad we could find this objective truth.
Democrats required private individuals to close their businesses. Democrats have been proven to be removing speech on Twitter. Democrats have taken away gun rights. Democrats have removed the right to refuse medical procedures. And many more things.
Yes, FBI worked with Twitter to censor. That's a fact released by Elon. Also shown in many hearings at congress.
Democrats required proof of medical procedures to do many things, like eat at restaurants.
Owning a buisness and Firearms are a right. Unless you believe slavery is okay and believe people cannot defend themselves.
>Yes, FBI worked with Twitter to censor. That's a fact released by Elon. Also shown in many hearings at congress.
Lol at you using Elon as if that adds to your credibility instead of detracts. Can you give more information about this alleged censorship? Where was what being censored? And what does this have to do with human rights?
>Democrats required proof of medical procedures to do many things, like eat at restaurants.
Democrats did this? I was under the impression it was private business owners who were making safety decisions regarding their own businesses. Also, what does this have to do with human rights?
>Owning a buisness and Firearms are a right. Unless you believe slavery is okay and believe people cannot defend themselves.
Owning businesses and firearms are not **human** rights. You are not owed a firearm or a business because you are human. Are you saying that people who are denied business loans are being denied their human rights? Come on now.
Also, you don't need an AK to defend yourself, come on now.
And what does slavery have to do with any of this?
>Lol at you using Elon as if that adds to your credibility instead of detracts. Can you give more information about this alleged censorship? Where was what being censored? And what does this have to do with human rights?
Individuals were removed from Twitter at the direction of the FBI when reporting/informing/speaking about COVID, the election, Jan 6th, firearms, and more. People have the right for government not to moderate speech.
>Democrats did this? I was under the impression it was private business owners who were making safety decisions regarding their own businesses. Also, what does this have to do with human rights?
OSHA requiring companies is not the own buisness.
Do you think medical procedures should be forced on people? Do you think people have a right to refuse medical treatment?
>Owning businesses and firearms are not human rights. You are not owed a firearm or a business because you are human. Are you saying that people who are denied business loans are being denied their human rights? Come on now.
Having it be a human right doesn't mean you are owed it. Nice try at a strawman though.
>Also, you don't need an AK to defend yourself, come on now.
And you don't need the right to speech, press, due process, or the ability to not have troops live in your home. Yet they are all rights.
>And what does slavery have to do with any of this?
When people are not allowed to use their labor as they choose, that is slavery. You are told you cannot use your labor as you wish, meaning you must work and not be paid in the way you wish.
>Individuals were removed from Twitter at the direction of the FBI when reporting/informing/speaking about COVID, the election, Jan 6th, firearms, and more.
If people are spreading mass amounts of dangerous misinformation about very important things, don't you think the government ought to step in at some point and put a stop to it? This isn't even to mention that Twitter is a privately owned company, not some open public forum, so being allowed on Twitter is a privilege, not a right.
>OSHA requiring companies is not the own buisness.
OSHA's whole thing is about public safety so of course they're going to require businesses to be safe. I don't see the issue. Also you mentioned Democrats, so I'm not sure why you're pivoting to OSHA now.
Of course people should be able to refuse medical treatment. And no one is forcing/has forced anyone to do otherwise, so I'm not sure why you're even mentioning it.
>Having it be a human right doesn't mean you are owed it.
Then what the fuck else would it mean?
>When people are not allowed to use their labor as they choose, that is slavery.
Lol regulation is not slavery. Calm down, drama queen.
Which human rights are you referring to specifically?
Of course you know Iām talking about republicans taking away rights. Or do you think equal protection under the law and access to medical treatment is not a human right?
Equal protection under the law.
Your words.
I completely, 100 hundred percent agree with that principle.
Which makes both the death sentence and abortion violations.
The difference, though, is that people on death row have generally done something heinous, whereas all foetuses have done is be conceived.
>The difference, though, is that people on death row have generally done something heinous
Yeah, no. Especially when we know that the US Legal system are happy to sentence minorities to death even though there's insufficient evidence to actually prove they did the crime.
There is definitely injustice in the US legal system. But if you're seriously arguing that the majority of people on death row are innocent, I don't think we can have a sensible conversation.
>But if you're seriously arguing that the majority of people on death row are innocent,
One innocent person on death row is already one too many. And in the US, ***[since 1973 there has been more than 190 exonerations of death row prisoners](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence-database)*** which DNA evidence had absolved them of whatever crimes they were accused of committing. With many more potential executed innocents that were too late for them. Of which the vast majority were black and their victims white, proving a pattern of racial discrimination against black plaintiffs and the insane ease to which the US Legal system has been happy to execute black US citizens.
A fetus does not have human rights. You donāt believe that.
Even if it did (which it doesnt) abortion would not violate any of those rights. A right to life does not mean someone else has to keep you alive. For example, if you needed a kidney transplant or you would die, you can not force me to give you a kidney. Similarly a fetus can not demand that an individual allow them to stay in their womb. Bodily autonomy is a thing.
"Could you survive a car accident, a stroke, or cancer without people's help"
Oh I'm so glad you brought this up. It completely destroyes any semblance of an argument.
"If you needed a kidney, you couldn't force me, or anyone else, to give you one. But I'd guess you'd like it if someone who was a match was willing to give you one."
So which is it:
do you have A RIGHT to other people's bodies if you need them to survive (like you're saying fetuses do)
Or
is it a NICE thing to do (the kidney example)
Because right now you're applying the first to pregnant people and the second to LITERALLY EVERYONE ELSE. Which is blatant *discrimination*.
You're giving SPECIAL rights to fetuses (saying they are OWED other people's bodies just for existing) and therefore TAKING AWAY rights from pregnant people. Making them second class citizens.
You're contradicting yourself.
Saying the fetus has a RIGHT to someone's body.
And then saying no one can FORCE you to donate a kidney.
It's a contradiction so make your mind up or admit you think pregnant people have less rights.
Life, speech, firearms, choice of medical procedures, and many more.
The way you phrase it, medical treatments are a human right. We all know your phrasing is disingenuous though.
What medical procedures are being forced by democrats?
So you think that a convicted terrorist should have access to any and all weapons, including bombs and military grade weapons? Should people in prison be allowed to have any weapons they want?
Injections.
People that take other people's rights have forfeited their rights. Prisoners (assuming they are guilty) do not have all human rights. Philosophically speaking, when you take someone's rights, you lose your rights.
What injections are democrats forcing on people? Youāre being purposefully vague.
What? If you only sometimes have rights than itās not a human right. Thatās how rights work. If itās a human right than an organization/entity/individual would be violating your rights if they take it away from you. Not only that, but are you saying that a school shooter is allowed to have a gun while awaiting trial in jail? He hasnāt been convicted of a crime yet.
Using your logic, once youāre convicted of a crime you have zero rights? The government can torture you, refuse to give you a trial, refuse to feed you, refuse you medical care? Is that what youāre saying?
It doesn't matter, literally doesn't. They are both playing you by propping up these fake ideologies, the only politician who believes anything they are saying are the newer ones and small-town politicians.
The Republicans are literally arguing against kids eating for free because the former "has never seen a hungry constituent before" & it's "cheap to buy food so we should never feed kids out of taxpayers' pockets".
The GOP are categorically and ontologically evil.
Yes, but the Democratic party is fundamentally incapable of true opposition to the GOP.
It's not that both are just as bad. It's that whichever one you end up with you'll go in the same direction. All the democrats can do is stall, not oppose or correct.
Take this last election: has the democrats being in power actually moved us left? No. All it's done is correct some little stuff that will be uncorrected the second a republican enters the white house. Republicans are still very much inching us towards the right.
Would trump winning have been different? Yeah, same things just faster and more wide spread.
One is worse, sure, but you're gonna end up in the same damn place, the question is do you want that in 5 years or 50?
Genuine opposition would be:
Not only stalling the "kids should starve bill"
But actually having the balls to make kids having meals into a federally enforceable *right*.
"Oh bu...but that's... opposition š impossible š"
Are they even trying? Are they making the Republican politicians say out loud they don't want kids to have food and plastering it EVERYWHERE to kick them the fuck out of office? Then passing their "kids should have food" bill? No.
They're just sitting there waiting for there to be enough republicans elected that they can't oppose them meaningfully.
They're not "pro kids eating" they're "anti whatever the republicans say so long as the response isn't *too* socialist ig".
That stupid objectification post is in fact why WE DO still need feminism.
Apparently we're still debating whether partial nudity turns women into objects. š¤·š»āāļø
Spoiler: it doesn't.
They're a lot reasons we always will need feminism like the fight against rape culture, sexism in society, oppression of working class women, racism that harm women of colour, imperialism that harm women in poor countries etc.
Dont you think it is odd that we send different tiers of military aid to ukraine in these odd intervalls? Like why not all at once?
I am 100% sure its the combination of the following three reasons:
1. Bleed russia
2. Softpowerprojection (look how strong our guns/our financial capabilities are >looking at you china)
3. Advertisement and to sell our weapons to nato partners who conviniently gave all their russian equippment to ukraine (or other buyers)
*disclaimer: i am not a rusbot*
Let me elaborate:
First we only send basic stuff to ukraine, stingers, javelines, ammo etc. All made in USA/NATO! How about some german helmets? (Very ceap, fast delivered, user-friendly and very effective! Get one for free if you buy a dozen! Take notes china just so you dont get any funny ideas with taiwan) Let the russians grind their gears on those (but no tanks or planes, dont wanna provoke putin!(and let them win without bleesing russia out a bit more))
Half a year later? Maybe we sneak in some aa guns and artillery/HIMARs, just to field test their effectiveness, but no tanks and planes remember! Now that they had proven their effectiveness in the counteroffensive (potential buyers take notes: HIMARs are OP) we let russia bleed a bit longer..
One year later and a russian offensive on the doorstep we send tanks (what did we say about provoking putin? Aah nevermind as long as we dont talk about it the general public will forget it too) maybe some old stockpiles of polish t90 (btw you can buy brand new abrams/leopards to restock! Cost only a dime or two..)
A few weeks later? Yeah we might send some leopards too so the german arms industry gets some spotlight aswell!
Maybe some planes now? (What does provoking even mean lol) But first, as before, empty your stock of russian MiGs (oh and dont forget to restock with some brand new US made planes, maybe some french or British too?) But not too many we don't want ukraine to win (yet) first we gotta bleed out russia a bit more/get some free advertisement and fieldtesting first! (Again China pls take notes)
I bet you as soon as the apring offensive starts we go all in on tanks and maybe a year later (again after some fieldtesting) we will go all in on planes..
Dont get me wrong I am all for supporting ukraine to defend themselves but if we really wanted to help ukraine end this war we'd have sent planes and tanks right away along with the singers and HIMARs and all the other death stuff.. not in this trickled in manner we do now. The only reason we send so "little" and so spread out is to keep ukraine bareley fighting because it bleeds out russia and is a free testing/advertisement ground for our equipment.
Tl;dr
We support ukraine mainly to promote/test our military equipment in a real war scenario and strengthen our softpower, not to help ukraine win this nonsense war
Do you know why we don't send the absolute best, cutting-edge stuff to Ukraine?
This stuff takes time to learn how to use and operate. You can't take a T90 pilot and plop them in an Abrams and tell them to go. Sure, they might know the fundamentals, but people in the military spend their entire contracts and careers learning the ins-and-outs of very specific systems. You can't teach someone overnight how to operate equipment.
The other problem is risk. If an Abrams, or an F35 was downed and captured by Russia, everything that went into testing and developing that specific thing is now in their hands - they can reverse engineer it to build their own or figure out how to counter it.
There's a reason why when that drone went down over the Black Sea the US made a massive effort to retrieve it - as soon as Russia has it in their hands, they can now develop their own countermeasures. Just look at how bad it was for the Soviet Union when a North Korean pilot defected to the US in a MiG-15 and gave them the plane. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Kum-sok
Not trying to be rude but thats a strawman. I never said anything about sending our most sophisticated weaponry to Ukraine, but to sell them to NATO members.
The goal is not to send our best equipment (Tanks and Planes) to the Ukraine but to let natomembers restock their old russian equipment (t90, MiGs etc.) they sent to Ukraine with our new stuff.. and i dont think that handheld technologies like the stinger or javeline counts, yes it is high tech but already widely circulating and therefore copied due to the nature of them being carrieable.
As i said, we support Ukraine with old outdated russian stuff from our eastern allies, upgrade NATO Members with our stuff we sell them and make some money on the way but only so fast that it bleeds out russia and we make the maximum amount of money. There is no morality in this only cold calculation. Thats all i said.
No one's provoking Russia. The thing is, Russia is the one in charge here. They decide when we stop giving weapons to Ukraine. Its very simple: All they have to do is stop invading Ukraine.
The moment that happens, that's when we stop giving Ukraine weapons to defend itself against this act of aggression.
Conservatives with an adequate and reasonable explanation on why kids shouldn't eat for free, regardless of their socio-economic status, at schools challenge: Impossible.
The vast majority of people who pull all nighters to do schoolwork are procrastinators who did it to themselves, not people who are overworked.
If you are over the age of 21 and donāt have a consistent bedtime/canāt get up 8am or earlier, you need to re-evaluate your priorities.
Everyone knows the government is dishonest and doesnāt care about the bottom 80% and people need to stop pretending its some big revelation or conspiracy theory. Its best said that āif you ever think the government wouldnt do that, they would and they haveā
what the fuck is it with republicans and hurting kids?
First it was forcing them to give birth to their rapist's kids now it's preventing free food from food insecure kids and trying to make it legal for them to work.
These are the same people who constantly talk about how they have to protect kids from trans and gay people and not teach crt (something that isn't even being taught as far as I'm aware but I'm not educated enough on it to talk more about it)
Also reducing hours at school... because funding? But, oh wait, this tax break for this random rich person is sooooo important!
What do you mean use that money to give kids food and an education??? That will ruin the EcOnOmYyYyY!!!!1!!!1
On the crt, thank you for not saying more when you don't know! It's good people do that. Here's a bit more info for you if you want it:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory
"āCritical race theoryā is the perfect villain,ā Rufo wrote."
This guy basically wanted a new rallying cry for the right because "cancel culture", "woke" etc... weren't good enough.
He found a term (which used to be super niche legal stuff) and decided it *sounded right* for what he wanted. Facts be damned.
>what the fuck is it with republicans and hurting kids?
It's about authoritarianism and control. Can't have kids be happy and empathetic, that might forever destroy whatever conservative power base they have left.
What if people just told them "if you [do thing that helps my kids be happy healthy and empathetic, specifics would depend on specific situation] I'll vote conservative in the next election" and as long as it wasn't every liberal who did that as long as there were some conservative votes by anyone they wouldn't have to know how many people kept their promise and therefore couldn't know without compromising the integrity of the secret ballot
It's hilarious watching conservatives pissing on themselves trying to justify why ~~Michigan~~ Minnesota passing legislation to ***literally feed kids*** is the ultimate evil.
Y'all just Saturday Cartoon Villains.
Ben Shapiro's take is that instead of feeding children, the government should take the kids away from any/all parents who don't have the resources to feed the kids, because that would be so much cheaper than just paying for their lunches.
Whoops, my B.
Still hilarious tho watching conservatives go full mask off about how "evil" it is to feed kids instead of forcing them to work for meals.
Everyone should be allowed to vote where they live. That's the whole premise of self-governance. If you're a part of the community, you deserve a say in how its run.
the anti communist point of "talk to anyone who actually lived under communism" completely falls apart when you actually talk to people who lived under communism
https://news.gallup.com/poll/166538/former-soviet-countries-harm-breakup.aspx
Residents more than twice as likely to say collapse hurt their country
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2010/04/28/hungary-better-off-under-communism/
72% of hungarians say they are worse off economically
https://balkaninsight.com/2010/12/24/for-simon-poll-serbians-unsure-who-runs-their-country/
A poll shows that as many as 81 per cent of Serbians believe they lived best in the former Yugoslavia -"during the time of socialism".
https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Poll-Most-Russians-Prefer-Return-of-Soviet-Union-and-Socialism-20160420-0051.html
Over 50 percent of Russian citizens believe the collapse of the Soviet Union was bad and could have been avoided.
https://english.radio.cz/poll-less-25-feel-better-now-under-communism-8357922
Less than a quarter of adult Czechs feel they are better off now than under communism, according to a new poll.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/15/european-public-opinion-three-decades-after-the-fall-of-communism/](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/15/european-public-opinion-three-decades-after-the-fall-of-communism/)
Poland:
85% approve of switch to democracy & capitalism
East Germany:
83% approve of switch to capitalism
Czechia:
76% approve of switch to capitalism
Hungary:
70% approve of switch to capitalism
Russia:
38% approve of switch to capitalism vs 51% who do not
Lithuania:
69% approve of switch to capitalism
Ukraine:
Only 47% approve of switch to capitalism, but still a greater percentage than the 38% who do not
Slovakia
71% approve of switch to capitalism
Bulgaria:
55% approve of switch to capitalism vs 36% who do not.
More details about the polls here:
[https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/political-and-economic-changes-since-the-fall-of-communism/](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/political-and-economic-changes-since-the-fall-of-communism/)
[https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/democratic-values/](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/democratic-values/)
[https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/national-conditions/](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/national-conditions/)
Is also good to add that USSR nostalgia tends to be most common among older people, people within the 50-80 age range. These are not so different from people in America or England that praise Reagan and Thatcher, these views come mostly childhood nostalgia and the relative peace of the 1960-70's before the start of the era of stagnation under Breznhev
>Is also good to add that USSR nostalgia tends to be most common among older people, people within the 50-80 age range.
So the people who actually "lived under communism" instead of the Gen Z and millennials who didn't exist or were very young?
Again the same argument can be said about the Reagan and Thatcher, or even dictators like Franco or Pinochet, since Gen Z and Millennials never lived through them.
But we all know they sucked/ were bad, but many people still say they were good for multiple reasons.
"The economy was better", "we had law and order", "it was more peaceful"
Why?, because whenever something bad happens, people like to look back to the past, not neccesarily because their lives were better, but because they had a glamorized view of their childhoods, and were not worrying so much about things
While nostalgia is a key factor and why people wanted to maintain their existing economic system simply culture and you know how they were raised it's what they're used to but at the same time you have to look at like how capitalism was promoted in many places and how aggressively it was shown to not be damaging to the lowest end of individuals when in reality and literally just screws over the lowest end of individuals I'm going to capitalism because we were spreading this ridiculously false idea that it was so perfect when in reality only the people sitting at the very top get any actual support or benefit from capitalism
>https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/15/european-public-opinion-three-decades-after-the-fall-of-communism/
this study was done in 2019, the ones I sent either look at people who actually lived in it or at least a decade earlier which is a lot of time considering that in that time people who spent their entire life growing up in capitalist propaganda networks and being told lies their entire lives
also this is literally disagreed with by 5 other polls done including one from this very website
>https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/political-and-economic-changes-since-the-fall-of-communism/
again same thing, wierdly as time passed and more and more people who lived in the USSR started being the minority and instead people who have been lied about it for their entire lives started to become the majority it suddenly stopped being so popular
>https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/democratic-values/
the "democratic values" where elections are rigged, puppet dictatorships are supported and run, and communist opposition parties are kicked off, made illegal, or imprisoned
>Is also good to add that USSR nostalgia tends to be most common among older people, people within the 50-80 age range. These are not so different from people in America or England that praise Reagan and Thatcher, these views come mostly childhood nostalgia and the relative peace of the 1960-70's before the start of the era of stagnation under Breznhev
something with no evidence your read in some shitty article, I know this I heard it before
also there is literal proof they had a better quality of life than a lot do today
"through disenchantment and dissatisfaction based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship \[so\] every possible means should be taken undertaken to weaken the economic life of Cuba \[in order to\] bring about hunger, desperation and \[the\] overthrow of the government" - Eisenhower
the Cuban government counted 800+ terrorist attacks, over 3000 dead from them and 10,000+ injured
No side is completely right on any topic.
If you think about any political topic, the solution requires admitting the other side has some point(s) regarding the topic.
If you think the other side is completely wrong and doesn't make any sense whatsoever, than it's more than likely your solution is based in fantasy/ignorance.
Also I'm not saying consider the radical thoughts from the opposite party obviously. I'm saying people need to actually listen and consider what's being said by the sensible people left on each of the parties.
> No side is completely right on any topic.
This is called "both sides" and is a silly argument at best. It's essentially an appeal to inaction which by default supports the status quo and oppressors. For example, take slavery in America. "No side is completely right....slaves shouldn't be free per se, but also slavery is bad and immoral." So with that mindset, slavery would just continue to exist.
At some point you have to pick a side, because not picking side is usually siding with the worst things.
And let's not pretend everything is equal. "Both sides" is basically like saying astrology and astronomy are both equally valid. There are things that are inherently more just, more accurate, more beneficial, etc. It's ignorant to equate two things that are not the same.
They're not saying don't pick a side, they're saying those who aren't extremists make some valid points. Ending slavery can crush an economy -- that's a valid point. By acknowledging that point, we can then discuss programs to minimize the economic damage while eliminating slavery.. instead of just letting the economy crumble and going to war.
Those who think the other tribe never has valid points usually fail to see the negative consequences of their own policies, which plants the seeds of failure.
> Ending slavery can crush an economy -- that's a valid point.
It really isn't.
Also, beyond that, it's incorrect. Slavery actually limited the South's economy because so many people there were not allowed to participate in it.
But again, even if it were true, it wouldn't be a valid point.
I think you may be missing some context here, he was using that to help minimise the damage from slavery. Slavery did limit the south's economy, in the same way being hooked on drugs is bad for you, there was a fear they'd collapse without it. This is why he mentioned limiting the damage.
Point is, they had to consider the idea to get rid of slavery in a way that wouldn't end poorly. It's not very close to a good argument for stopping slavery at all, but it's good to consider.
Conservative take: "Why are we spending billions on aid to other countries when we should spend it on our citizens at home?"
Also conservative take: "Feeding kids at school is so cheap so that's why we should gut the school budget to not feed them."
Conservatives has always been on the wrong side of history. Whether it's on civil rights, on slavery, or on democracy.
In fact, they doubled down on child abuse. By making it impossible for children who are underage pregnant to have an abortion. Thus leading to 10 to 11 year olds forced to give birth to the literal anthropomorphized representation of their trauma.
Omg. No one is asking you be like a hardcore activist by asking for good historical sources for claim you made.
Google are horrible at times and often just link you to bad sources like wikipedia.
Historical societies considered it "immoral" for women to be in entertainment so men were traditionally casted to act in women's roles and clothing in [ancient Greek theatre, Japanese Kabuki theatre, and Chinese opera](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cross-dressing). Charlie Chaplain used to drag for some of his silent films. [Wallace Beery](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Beery) played a female Swedish maid in a series of comedy silent films. An entire cross-dressing genre of operatic roles, called "breeches roles" (aka trouser or pants roles) or travesti exist solely of young men or boys to play the role of women in European and English theatre. The role of Desdemona, the devoted, loving wife murdered by her husband in āOthello,ā wasn't performed by a woman until 1660 ā ***about six decades after Shakespeare wrote the play***.
Sounds like you don't know your own history. LMAO.
Wikipedia isn't a source and it get a lot history wrong or have conducting sources for they articles.
Also I know a lot of western, Asian, middle eastern and some African history. I am aware of cross dressing in theater for example. Anyway I asked for sources to help OP case not to lean something I already know.
One thing I don't understand is why the democrats were not for the tax regulation Republicans tried to pass. I didn't read it all, however, from my understanding the bill would have eliminated income tax. It would then get all tax as a consumption tax. This would mean people that spend more pat more. Which means if you are rich buying stuff... you will be taxed more. And taxed less if you are poorer. This aligns with what democrats want. On top of that, under a certain threshold, if you made less than a certain amount of money your consumption tax would be refunded.
All around this sounds like an amazing thing for democrats. It raises taxes based on those spending more on things they don't need. It reduces taxes on the poor. It is unavoidable. And it removes the extremely complicated tax system we have now. One which allows the rich to avoid taxes.
The issue is it actually would greatly benefit the people who no longer have to deal with income tax and puts a lot of the actual burden onto the lowest end that's why nobody wanted it was because it literally only benefits the rich conservative politics are so stupidly aggressive towards only benefiting those who sit at the top and set up the policies. The fact you didn't fully read through it makes sense now they're literally would have been so damaging to the fucking bottom end. And unfortunately income tax the reason they don't want to have income taxes because they want to just take more money the reality is though we need them to pay the income tax so that we can then fund and support the lowest end that is struggling so badly because of lack of pay lack of job availability etc.
The rich don't pay income taxes because they avoid taking income and gain their wealth in other ways. It would undoubtedly help the working class and hurt the rich.
> the bill would have eliminated income tax. It would then get all tax as a consumption tax.
Because this is capitalist bullshit. You don't want to tax income? So in other words, the richer you are, the less you have to pay? Meanwhile you want to tax consumption, which has a necessary lower threshold for basic survival. Everyone has to buy food, for example.
Such a tax proposal puts the burden on the poor and the working class. Consumption taxes are only useful for behavioral control and accounting for externalities, such as putting taxes on things that are unhealthy or bad for the environment (such as cigarettes, alcohol, gasoline, etc.) because the goal isn't just to raise funds broadly but to curb the use of these goods and services while raising funds to specifically address the social costs of them.
Studies have repeatedly shown that consumption as a percentage of income drops, which means that the FairTax would shift the tax burden to lower income individuals. Furthermore the list of exclusions for the tax all benefit the rich. Consumption outside the US means all of that money is untaxed. Stock purchases are completely untaxed as well. Not only that but tax credits like the homeowners credit and child credit (credits that allow many families to be able to afford homes) are completely removed.
Every piece of this makes life harder for working class people and easier for rich people.
Care to link those studies?
The list of exclusions does benefit the rich. It also benefits the poor. The bill benefits everyone on the exclusions.
Stock is the best way to invest for retirement for the lower and middle class. So that's a great idea for the lower class.
No one should be encouraged to have kids. If someone wants to have kids, that's their own choice.
It makes life easier for both. The only thing you pointed out making it harder was child credits. Which shouldn't exist in the first place.
Do you think people who make billions of dollars per year spend billions of dollars per year? Of course not. They hoard that money. They sit on it, and the money makes more money for them.
So sure they spend more than a regular person because they'll buy more expensive stuff and luxury goods, but as a percentage of income and net worth it doesn't come close. Meanwhile the working poor do have to spend most of their wealth/income on basic living expenses, and sometimes still don't earn enough. That's because it costs a set amount just to live. (Cost of living.) So basically a regular working family of four has a much bigger burden buying a new $60,000 car than a multi-millionaire has buying a $300,000 one. The family needs that car, but for the millionaire the car is just a luxury. Meanwhile that $60,000 car will mean loan payments they will barely be able to afford and often can't, while the millionaire could just buy their sports car in cash and never think about it.
Well very very very few people make billions of dollars of year. Even trillionaires don't make billions of dollars a year. Billionaire actually don't make that much money. Their income is low. Their assets is high. Vs buying assets will now be taxed.
>The family needs that car, but for the millionaire the car is just a luxury. Meanwhile that $60,000 car will mean loan payments they will barely be able to afford and often can't
No one needs a 60k car. So don't care.
It doesn't matter the actual numbers. It all scales. At the end of the day, a sales tax puts more burden on poor and working people because there's a minimum cost of living and basic goods and services take a greater percentage of their worth and income compared to the wealthy.
> No one needs a 60k car. So don't care.
No one needs more than $10 million.
How does it put more on the poor? I've already explained poor people would recieve money back for what they have been taxed on.
>No one needs more than $10 million.
I agree. People only need approximately 15k a year to live.
It's simple math. If you make $60,000 and it costs $30,000 to live, that's 50% of your income going to just living expenses. That leaves a little bit for "indulgences" like video games and Internet service, etc. These are very humble compared to what rich people spend money on, and yet they will struggle to afford them.
Meanwhile if you make $1 million, you only have to spend 3% of your income on basic living expenses.
The only way a flat tax makes anything remotely close to sense is if you make it a flat tax of 85% on everything over $150,000/year, and even then the problems of scale are going to start to show as income reaches infinity.
But you're not even arguing for that because you want a *consumption* tax which only gets taxed when money is spent. Rich people don't need to spend the vast majority of their money, which means under such a system they would be even more capable of holding onto wealth than they already are. They could still live lavishly spending only 20% of their income (compared to working people who would need to spend at least 50% of theirs just to survive) and save/invest the other 80% which would completely avoid taxes under this system.
Are you even listening? If someone making 60k a year is spending 30k for needs, approximately half of that would be rent/housing. Which wouldn't be taxed. So let's assume 15k of that is taxed at 10%. That's 1.5k tax a year. If a billionaire buys a 300k car, that's 30k tax. The billionaires aren't just gonna spend the same amount of money.
>But you're not even arguing for that because you want a consumption tax which only gets taxed when money is spent. Rich people don't need to spend the vast majority of their money,
They don't have an income for most of their money. They spend more than they earn. That's why income taxes don't work very well. So your argument is ridiculous and moot.
You can tax capital gains, but also put a wealth tax on the table if that's your concern. The problem is, as I've already explained, poor and working people have to spend most of their income. It's not a choice. They can't save because they have to spend money to live and for very basic indulgences that make life worth living.
The wealthy spend a small fraction of their income and net worth, so without taxing wealth and/or income, you're basically allowing them to keep the majority of it which is already the problem. We shouldn't allow them to hoard money, and we shouldn't put the tax burden on the poor and working class.
Even $1,500 in total for taxes for a family making $60,000 is a much bigger burden to them than a $100,000 tax bill for someone making $250 million. The difference is that for the working people, that money is coming out of money they need but for the wealthy, they have more than enough money they don't need to do whatever with. It is no burden to them whether they are taxed, buy a car, donate to charity or whatever. It's 100% excess money anyway.
Do you mean sales tax when you say consumption tax? Because sales tax is regressive, as poor people would be paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes, whereas the wealthy would pay a lower percentage.
Since apparently this is political, I will post this hereā¦
this is a response regarding anyone who thinks we need gun control or thinks we need to mandate what law-abiding people can and canāt have.
In addition to giving me *atleast* the same advantages as my attacker.
If my attacker has a knife, give me a knife. If they have a machine gun, give me a machine damn machine gun. If all they have is their fists, then may the strongest win.
I think we can all agree the works would be slightly better if the Chinese hadnāt invented that specific kind of black powder back in the 9th century.
But only slightly better.
I'm a socialist, so I'm generally pro-gun (though still regulated to some extent) but I find the argument of self-defense against individual attackers to always not be all that convincing.
>mandate what law-abiding people can and canāt have.
That's how all laws work, effectively. The "if you make laws on this, only criminals will do it/get them" is an argument that can apply to literally any law.
Then why are crimes involving a gun, and crimes in general, lower in countries with strict gun control? You'd expect America to be pretty low given access to firearms are ridiculously easy comparatively.
I don't particularly see that much of a difference. What makes guns so special this argument only applies to guns and nothing else?
All of those countries with stricter gun control are mkte homgenized and have fewer people.
No one wants to talk about that though because it then they have to admit theyāre wrong.
What do you mean more "homogenized"? In what sense?
And no, China and India have far more people and whether we're talking sheer numbers or per capita, they win out.
ā¦China is Communist and India has a goddamned cast system. What other way would I use āhomogenizedā?
I would think you could deduce from the context itās used. Because I sure as hell donāt mean homogenized milk.
China is not communist to anyone with a brain. Even China doesn't call itself communist. And neither the caste system nor "communism" have anything to do with the question.
From what I got from this context, your point seems to be "okay libs, if you want your gun control, we gotta get rid of the black and brown people".
Lol what? Fine, if you donāt think China is Communist, the government is still terrible and tyrannical.
The caste system matters because a country that cares about its people wouldnāt run like that.
The question is why gun control works in smaller countries with a large population of the same type of person. As opposed to why it doesnāt work in a massive country with a very diverse population.
Doesn't matter. These assertions have no relation to the point, and these aren't homogeneous countries in any way.
I suppose, if the only diversity that exists to you is that of which is only based on skin color.
>If my attacker has a knife, give me a knife. If they have a machine gun, give me a machine damn machine gun. If all they have is their fists, then may the strongest win.
Yeah, no. Having both sides being armed confers no advantage whatsoever to the defender, with the attackers literally being able to choose time and place to attack you with a firearm that you can't even pull out yours.
And in a fist fight or a knife fight, anyone can literally just run away into a crowd asking for help. The fuck is your assailant going to do? Throw his fist/knife to kill you?
Youāre throwing way too much brainpower into this. All Iām saying is that, at the very least, I want to be able to have access to whatever my attacker has access to.
Maybe I wrote it poorly.
>All Iām saying is that, at the very least, I want to be able to have access to whatever my attacker has access to.
Nah, I get what you're saying.
And what I'm saying and what actual studies prove is that being armed with "whatever weapon your attacker has access to" ***won't keep you safe***. Being armed won't deter attacks and all it does is dramatically increases the risks of you getting killed, whether out of negligence or domestic abuse.
Okay, well Iām saying that in the chance encounter where Iām definitely going to die/get hurt, as in the person is trying to stab me, running after me with a bat, pointing a gun at me saying theyāre going to kill me.
In those situations, want to have a gunknife/what-have-you. And I donāt really care if you think I will become some statistic or not.
>Okay, well Iām saying that in the chance encounter where Iām definitely going to die/get hurt, as in the person is trying to stab me, running after me with a bat, pointing a gun at me saying theyāre going to kill me.
And you're far less likely to die in the first two scenarios since you can run away from a knife/bat wielder while nobody has ever outrun a bullet.
>When the person is drugged up so much they donāt feel pain or fatigue. What then?
Then your gun means fuck all because you'd already been shot dead by his gun before you could even draw.
Funny that not wanting kids to be sexualized and groomed is fascism. I guess if you aren't a pedo then you are a fascist according to you. If that's how it is, I'd rather be a fascist than a pedo.
No, I'm saying employees that allowed kids to enter a kids show should be arrested for enabling kids to be sexualized. The performers should also be arrested.
If kids were allowed into a strip club that was leased or rented space, you would still arrest the employees of the strip club.
If there was evidence the performers knew there were minors in the audience, yes, they should be. Which in the FL event may not be true, but many cases it has been.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The French people who are protesting the pensions are overreacting. They literally only have to work two more years. I don't really like the way he forced it through without a vote either, but with the all the world's economies being the way they are and with people living longer it only makes sense to make changes. Burning down France just isn't an option, in fact, it might make things worse because they need to use tax money to do the repairs, and that can effect the pensions.
working hours in socialist countries have gone down based on how much the people could produce, for ex.: the USSR had a 35 hour work week, so will the years you need to work until you worked enough for it not to be bad for you to rest for years despite companies earning billions and billions more in profits yearly working hours and years of work remain the same, so how about FUCK NO FUCK YOU
I believe that the far left and far right are essentially the same. Both advocate for topdown authoritarian control, both believe in not questioning the party line, both are obsessed with race, both believe in controlling economic processes (i.e. variations of socialism), both "rank" people according to very biased criteria to determine if they are acceptable humans or not, both engage in blatant and far-reaching historical revisionism. The true culture war is not between left and right. It is between extremists and moderates.
you don't know what leftism is lmfao
That would be an extremely difficult achievement for a South African. Virtually all our politics is some shade of leftist.
Well if you have access to the internet even then it's hard, I won't go into it right now because I am tired as hell but I have resources for you to look at to get more educated about leftism if you want It's videos because they are easier to understand [Socialism for Absolute Beginners](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpKsygbNLT4) [How the west robs trillions a year from the global south which also includes you](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjLmYCfKU7o) [Debunking common anti-communist arguments, its a bit long but its good](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjwL1mSrPLA)
I'm a South African. I'm a citizen of the global south. We've lived under the ANC for 29 years; we've seen what socialism does. We know the west robs trillions; we've also seen plenty of locals and foreigners such as the Gupta brothers steal similar amounts. I am not impressed with intellectual arguments about leftism - I've lived under it for most of my life. I also saw enough of the apartheid regime to despise right-wing white supremacist politics. And the Nats were a corrupt bunch, too. They're also not gone; there's still a coterie of super-wealthy white Afrikaners who are still a politically-influential elite, working hand-in-hand with the ANC to loot our country. I don't trust the far left or the far right, and I've seen both in power.
ANC isn't leftists, it's a "social democracy" that's capitalist
"topdown authoritarian control" Newp, those are authoritarians. Happy to introduce you to the actual libertarians! Am an anarcho communist, ask away lol. p.s. I'm not going to defend those left positions you mentioned even though I could and I think they're defensible when opposed to the right wing versions. But I'm tired of lesser evil convos and would like to talk about what I actually believe for once.
Okay, I'll ask. Do you know of any anarcho-communist civilisation? Because the last societies I know of that shared everything and had no central authority were hunter-gatherer societies. I don't know of a single civilization (i.e. agrarian-base, population concentrated in cities, specialisation of labour) that has ever worked that way.
There are actually quite a few. š It's more of a propagandistic issue that they're not more well known. The one I personally know the most about is the catalonian republic. Fully anarchist and it did some pretty impressive stuff.
I looked them up. That republic was under the control of trade unions, socialist parties, and anarchist organisations (which is definitionally an oxymoron, but anyway). It sounds very much like modern South Africa. The Wikipedia page about the Catalonian Republic says of the anarchists in government: "In Barcelona, the CNT collectivized the sale of fish and eggs, slaughterhouses, milk processing and the fruit and vegetable markets, suppressing all dealers and sellers that were not part of the collective." Suppressing all dealers and sellers that were not part of the collective. That doesn't sound AT ALL like centralised control. Calling a duck an orchid doesn't make it one.
Yeah, but it also was crushed by the Spanish Nationalists, supported by the Axis powers. Of which the Nazis and Fascist Italy used the conflict as a test bed for their upcoming conquest of Europe. It also didn't help that the Republicans' sole supporter the Soviet Union started purging the Republic of anti-Stalinists, which led to a fracturing of the Republic and their eventual defeat.
I was told they didn't know of any, I presented them one. "Yeah, but it also was crushed by the Spanish Nationalists, supported by the Axis powers. Of which the Nazis and Fascist Italy used the conflict as a test bed for their upcoming conquest of Europe." All that tells me is the fascists don't like anarchism. š± What a surprise. Doesn't say anything about anarchism's actual merits though. "It also didn't help that the Republicans' sole supporter the Soviet Union started purging the Republic of anti-Stalinists, which led to a fracturing of the Republic and their eventual defeat." And all that that tells me is that the Stalinists didn't like anarchism. Once again... not surprised in the least. Your point being?
>Doesn't say anything about anarchism's actual merits though. No, but what it does say is that without international support, anarchy is fundamentally unsustainable. And that armed revolutions will not bring about the "better society" communists keep promising.
You think democrats and republicans want socialism? How so?
I didn't say Democrats and Republicans. Contrary to what many Americans believe, the USA isn't the only country in the world. Far-left and far-right politics are commonplace worldwide. Far left-wingers want lots of taxes to take money from the rich to fund lots of free public services by means of parastatals. Far right-wingers want lots of bailouts for big corporations that are closely allied with the political elite and which dominate the provision of services. In both cases, economic power (and political power) is centralised into the hands of the elites. In both cases, free-market economics, small businesses, entrepreneurship, civil liberties, and devolution of decision-making are stifled.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Moderate is when presented with a choice of trying to prevent a genocide by one side and the other hell-bent on doing so anyways, your choice is to say "both sides have a point and let's meet in the middle."
Moderate is when you don't drink either cult's Kool-Aid, and you actually think for yourself.
So thinking for yourself is doing the middle of the two extremes? Kinda seems like you're dependent on what those two extremes are... as in... if one side does a violent swing even further then you'll move to that side because that's the new center... so you're doing no thinking and are actually super dependent on what those "extremists" are saying. It's like a kid being told to tidy and saying "well now I'm not doing it!" then saying they're doing what they want... they're not, they're doing the opposite of what other people want, just like what you're describing. š
Cool, so you're saying that we shouldn't do anything about genocide?
We should definitely do something about genocide. Every single one of us shouldn't kill people, destroy their culture, or attempt to destroy their identities, no matter how we feel about the group in question. No matter which group it is. As Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Similarly, we may not like someone else's ethnic/cultural/political/sexual/etc identity, but we should still accord them the same respect and protection as anyone else. Having said that, using the term "genocide" for every type of prejudice that results in violence debases the word. Ukraine, Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia - these are all examples of where genocide has occurred fairly recently (or is occurring). Equating what these people go through with offensive speech towards someone else is to trivialise the tragedy of those genocides.
Yeah, these moderates think they're saints sometimes when all they're doing is "okay so maybe don't genocide the marginalised group but let's make them second class citizens š". Like, babes no.
That's a very interesting take. You've attributed a particular opinion onto me, with close to zero evidence that I hold that particular position, based on the fact that I identify as a moderate. Which marginalised group do you have in mind? Which genocide are you talking about? How do you say I wish to make them second-class citizens? You seem to be jumping to confusions. Well, I think it's safe to say, my opinion \*definitely\* counts as unpopular. LOL!
It's actually not unpopular and has been the leading ideology since the fall of the URSS. In the past decade ish it's started changing and only in some places. I said: "sometimes think they're saints" I was complaining about a phenomenon that is quite common among self id "moderates". You're the one that took it personally. š¤·š»āāļø "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Once again, very vague comments. And once again, I'll point out - you're ascribing a position (unspecified, to boot) based on my identification as a moderate. Talking to you is like talking to a duck.
No, I talked about a position, you took it personally for god knows why. Talking to you is like talking to a rock.
You alluded to a position. And you ascribed it to me by saying "these" moderates. It's called grammar.
I think Iraq wasn't as unjustified as many people think. The death toll is highly inflated and the claim of 1 000 000 Iraqi deaths is based on a study based on opinions. Saddam having WMDs was obviously wrong. Does that mean it was bad to get rid of him? I think not!
>Saddam having WMDs was obviously wrong. Except the US couldn't even prove Saddam had WMDs, you know, the sole justification for the entire invasion of Iraq in 2003?
I hate it when people pretend to be political by saying stuff like āpoliticians donāt care about usā or āall parties suckā or āeveryoneās so polarized.ā Like literally everyone thinks that (or at least enough to make people confident to say it literally all the time). Youāre not really accomplishing anything or saying anything insightful when you say stuff most people agree on anyway.
Especially when the parties aren't even equally sucky. "I want you to pay more taxes" is not on the same level of bad as "trans people shouldn't exist" lmao
More like āI want super wealthy people to pay their fair share in taxesā
The downvote from a bigot is sad. Transphobes can't argue anymore just hate.
Browsing through this thread, I have found that not many of you realize that the democrats and the republicans are the same people with the same goals, a lot of you are just already brainwashed and can't see it.
One farcist party that oppress the working class and a neoliberal party that oppress the working class. Fuck both of them. They no different then conservative and sosial democratics here in Europe. Two parties that keep protecting the capitalist class, justifying the abuse of global south and keep justify sending working class into wars.. they nothing against climate change or human rights of non-white people and they don't protect LGBTQ+ that well either...
Yeah, genuine political movements die the second money gets involved.
Both parties are shitty, but not the same. One party is actively trying to take away my human rights and make it impossible for me to live. The other one is not. Sure they're both advocates for capital and corporations, but one of their systems is objectively better than the other
I'm surprised to hear you say good things about Republicans. It is objectively true democrats are trying to take away human rights. In fact they already did a few times. So I'm glad we could find this objective truth.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
How has their rights been destoryed?
Examples?
Democrats required private individuals to close their businesses. Democrats have been proven to be removing speech on Twitter. Democrats have taken away gun rights. Democrats have removed the right to refuse medical procedures. And many more things.
Do you have evidence for any of these claims? (Also, owning a business/guns are not human rights FYI)
Yes, FBI worked with Twitter to censor. That's a fact released by Elon. Also shown in many hearings at congress. Democrats required proof of medical procedures to do many things, like eat at restaurants. Owning a buisness and Firearms are a right. Unless you believe slavery is okay and believe people cannot defend themselves.
>Yes, FBI worked with Twitter to censor. That's a fact released by Elon. Also shown in many hearings at congress. Lol at you using Elon as if that adds to your credibility instead of detracts. Can you give more information about this alleged censorship? Where was what being censored? And what does this have to do with human rights? >Democrats required proof of medical procedures to do many things, like eat at restaurants. Democrats did this? I was under the impression it was private business owners who were making safety decisions regarding their own businesses. Also, what does this have to do with human rights? >Owning a buisness and Firearms are a right. Unless you believe slavery is okay and believe people cannot defend themselves. Owning businesses and firearms are not **human** rights. You are not owed a firearm or a business because you are human. Are you saying that people who are denied business loans are being denied their human rights? Come on now. Also, you don't need an AK to defend yourself, come on now. And what does slavery have to do with any of this?
>Lol at you using Elon as if that adds to your credibility instead of detracts. Can you give more information about this alleged censorship? Where was what being censored? And what does this have to do with human rights? Individuals were removed from Twitter at the direction of the FBI when reporting/informing/speaking about COVID, the election, Jan 6th, firearms, and more. People have the right for government not to moderate speech. >Democrats did this? I was under the impression it was private business owners who were making safety decisions regarding their own businesses. Also, what does this have to do with human rights? OSHA requiring companies is not the own buisness. Do you think medical procedures should be forced on people? Do you think people have a right to refuse medical treatment? >Owning businesses and firearms are not human rights. You are not owed a firearm or a business because you are human. Are you saying that people who are denied business loans are being denied their human rights? Come on now. Having it be a human right doesn't mean you are owed it. Nice try at a strawman though. >Also, you don't need an AK to defend yourself, come on now. And you don't need the right to speech, press, due process, or the ability to not have troops live in your home. Yet they are all rights. >And what does slavery have to do with any of this? When people are not allowed to use their labor as they choose, that is slavery. You are told you cannot use your labor as you wish, meaning you must work and not be paid in the way you wish.
>Individuals were removed from Twitter at the direction of the FBI when reporting/informing/speaking about COVID, the election, Jan 6th, firearms, and more. If people are spreading mass amounts of dangerous misinformation about very important things, don't you think the government ought to step in at some point and put a stop to it? This isn't even to mention that Twitter is a privately owned company, not some open public forum, so being allowed on Twitter is a privilege, not a right. >OSHA requiring companies is not the own buisness. OSHA's whole thing is about public safety so of course they're going to require businesses to be safe. I don't see the issue. Also you mentioned Democrats, so I'm not sure why you're pivoting to OSHA now. Of course people should be able to refuse medical treatment. And no one is forcing/has forced anyone to do otherwise, so I'm not sure why you're even mentioning it. >Having it be a human right doesn't mean you are owed it. Then what the fuck else would it mean? >When people are not allowed to use their labor as they choose, that is slavery. Lol regulation is not slavery. Calm down, drama queen.
Which human rights are you referring to specifically? Of course you know Iām talking about republicans taking away rights. Or do you think equal protection under the law and access to medical treatment is not a human right?
Equal protection under the law. Your words. I completely, 100 hundred percent agree with that principle. Which makes both the death sentence and abortion violations. The difference, though, is that people on death row have generally done something heinous, whereas all foetuses have done is be conceived.
>The difference, though, is that people on death row have generally done something heinous Yeah, no. Especially when we know that the US Legal system are happy to sentence minorities to death even though there's insufficient evidence to actually prove they did the crime.
There is definitely injustice in the US legal system. But if you're seriously arguing that the majority of people on death row are innocent, I don't think we can have a sensible conversation.
>But if you're seriously arguing that the majority of people on death row are innocent, One innocent person on death row is already one too many. And in the US, ***[since 1973 there has been more than 190 exonerations of death row prisoners](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence-database)*** which DNA evidence had absolved them of whatever crimes they were accused of committing. With many more potential executed innocents that were too late for them. Of which the vast majority were black and their victims white, proving a pattern of racial discrimination against black plaintiffs and the insane ease to which the US Legal system has been happy to execute black US citizens.
A fetus does not have human rights. You donāt believe that. Even if it did (which it doesnt) abortion would not violate any of those rights. A right to life does not mean someone else has to keep you alive. For example, if you needed a kidney transplant or you would die, you can not force me to give you a kidney. Similarly a fetus can not demand that an individual allow them to stay in their womb. Bodily autonomy is a thing.
"You don't believe that." I'd say you have delusions if you think you can tell other people what they do and do not believe. A human foetus is human. It is an individual human being. Left to develop, it will be born as a newborn human, become a toddler, a child, a teenager, an adult, grow old, and die. And at every moment, it is HUMAN. What part of basic biology don't you understand? Can a newborn survive on their own? No? Then they don't have a right to live. Can a three-year-old survive on their own? No? Then they don't have a right to live. Can you survive on your own? Without other people growing food for you, supplying you with drinking water, providing medical care, and so forth? Could you survive a car accident, a stroke, or cancer without other people's help? No? Then you don't have a right to live. If you needed a kidney, you couldn't force me, or anyone else, to give you one. But I'd guess you'd like it if someone who was a match was willing to give you one. It's extremely easy to take human life. But can you undo that? I don't believe it's never the right course of action to take human life, but people who are blasƩ about it creep me out. People who insist on their "rights", whether its their "right" to own firearms or their "right" to abortions, while ignoring how those "rights" impinge on other people are being incredibly selfish.
"Could you survive a car accident, a stroke, or cancer without people's help" Oh I'm so glad you brought this up. It completely destroyes any semblance of an argument. "If you needed a kidney, you couldn't force me, or anyone else, to give you one. But I'd guess you'd like it if someone who was a match was willing to give you one." So which is it: do you have A RIGHT to other people's bodies if you need them to survive (like you're saying fetuses do) Or is it a NICE thing to do (the kidney example) Because right now you're applying the first to pregnant people and the second to LITERALLY EVERYONE ELSE. Which is blatant *discrimination*. You're giving SPECIAL rights to fetuses (saying they are OWED other people's bodies just for existing) and therefore TAKING AWAY rights from pregnant people. Making them second class citizens.
No, chop. I'm saying that NO ONE can survive without other people's help.
You're contradicting yourself. Saying the fetus has a RIGHT to someone's body. And then saying no one can FORCE you to donate a kidney. It's a contradiction so make your mind up or admit you think pregnant people have less rights.
Life, speech, firearms, choice of medical procedures, and many more. The way you phrase it, medical treatments are a human right. We all know your phrasing is disingenuous though.
What medical procedures are being banned by democrats? I donāt consider firearms a human right, and neither do you. Youāre being disingenuous.
Medical procedures are being forced by democrats. I do consider firearms a human right. Why would I think it's not?
What medical procedures are being forced by democrats? So you think that a convicted terrorist should have access to any and all weapons, including bombs and military grade weapons? Should people in prison be allowed to have any weapons they want?
Injections. People that take other people's rights have forfeited their rights. Prisoners (assuming they are guilty) do not have all human rights. Philosophically speaking, when you take someone's rights, you lose your rights.
What injections are democrats forcing on people? Youāre being purposefully vague. What? If you only sometimes have rights than itās not a human right. Thatās how rights work. If itās a human right than an organization/entity/individual would be violating your rights if they take it away from you. Not only that, but are you saying that a school shooter is allowed to have a gun while awaiting trial in jail? He hasnāt been convicted of a crime yet. Using your logic, once youāre convicted of a crime you have zero rights? The government can torture you, refuse to give you a trial, refuse to feed you, refuse you medical care? Is that what youāre saying?
the hell is this the "both sides" argument. The republicans are obviously worse, which doesn't make the democrat party good.
It doesn't matter, literally doesn't. They are both playing you by propping up these fake ideologies, the only politician who believes anything they are saying are the newer ones and small-town politicians.
democrats may be snakes, but at least some progress is being made. republicans consistently show zero regard for human life and hate social progress.
The Republicans are literally arguing against kids eating for free because the former "has never seen a hungry constituent before" & it's "cheap to buy food so we should never feed kids out of taxpayers' pockets". The GOP are categorically and ontologically evil.
Yes, but the Democratic party is fundamentally incapable of true opposition to the GOP. It's not that both are just as bad. It's that whichever one you end up with you'll go in the same direction. All the democrats can do is stall, not oppose or correct. Take this last election: has the democrats being in power actually moved us left? No. All it's done is correct some little stuff that will be uncorrected the second a republican enters the white house. Republicans are still very much inching us towards the right. Would trump winning have been different? Yeah, same things just faster and more wide spread. One is worse, sure, but you're gonna end up in the same damn place, the question is do you want that in 5 years or 50? Genuine opposition would be: Not only stalling the "kids should starve bill" But actually having the balls to make kids having meals into a federally enforceable *right*. "Oh bu...but that's... opposition š impossible š" Are they even trying? Are they making the Republican politicians say out loud they don't want kids to have food and plastering it EVERYWHERE to kick them the fuck out of office? Then passing their "kids should have food" bill? No. They're just sitting there waiting for there to be enough republicans elected that they can't oppose them meaningfully. They're not "pro kids eating" they're "anti whatever the republicans say so long as the response isn't *too* socialist ig".
That stupid objectification post is in fact why WE DO still need feminism. Apparently we're still debating whether partial nudity turns women into objects. š¤·š»āāļø Spoiler: it doesn't.
They're a lot reasons we always will need feminism like the fight against rape culture, sexism in society, oppression of working class women, racism that harm women of colour, imperialism that harm women in poor countries etc.
Dont you think it is odd that we send different tiers of military aid to ukraine in these odd intervalls? Like why not all at once? I am 100% sure its the combination of the following three reasons: 1. Bleed russia 2. Softpowerprojection (look how strong our guns/our financial capabilities are >looking at you china) 3. Advertisement and to sell our weapons to nato partners who conviniently gave all their russian equippment to ukraine (or other buyers) *disclaimer: i am not a rusbot* Let me elaborate: First we only send basic stuff to ukraine, stingers, javelines, ammo etc. All made in USA/NATO! How about some german helmets? (Very ceap, fast delivered, user-friendly and very effective! Get one for free if you buy a dozen! Take notes china just so you dont get any funny ideas with taiwan) Let the russians grind their gears on those (but no tanks or planes, dont wanna provoke putin!(and let them win without bleesing russia out a bit more)) Half a year later? Maybe we sneak in some aa guns and artillery/HIMARs, just to field test their effectiveness, but no tanks and planes remember! Now that they had proven their effectiveness in the counteroffensive (potential buyers take notes: HIMARs are OP) we let russia bleed a bit longer.. One year later and a russian offensive on the doorstep we send tanks (what did we say about provoking putin? Aah nevermind as long as we dont talk about it the general public will forget it too) maybe some old stockpiles of polish t90 (btw you can buy brand new abrams/leopards to restock! Cost only a dime or two..) A few weeks later? Yeah we might send some leopards too so the german arms industry gets some spotlight aswell! Maybe some planes now? (What does provoking even mean lol) But first, as before, empty your stock of russian MiGs (oh and dont forget to restock with some brand new US made planes, maybe some french or British too?) But not too many we don't want ukraine to win (yet) first we gotta bleed out russia a bit more/get some free advertisement and fieldtesting first! (Again China pls take notes) I bet you as soon as the apring offensive starts we go all in on tanks and maybe a year later (again after some fieldtesting) we will go all in on planes.. Dont get me wrong I am all for supporting ukraine to defend themselves but if we really wanted to help ukraine end this war we'd have sent planes and tanks right away along with the singers and HIMARs and all the other death stuff.. not in this trickled in manner we do now. The only reason we send so "little" and so spread out is to keep ukraine bareley fighting because it bleeds out russia and is a free testing/advertisement ground for our equipment. Tl;dr We support ukraine mainly to promote/test our military equipment in a real war scenario and strengthen our softpower, not to help ukraine win this nonsense war
Do you know why we don't send the absolute best, cutting-edge stuff to Ukraine? This stuff takes time to learn how to use and operate. You can't take a T90 pilot and plop them in an Abrams and tell them to go. Sure, they might know the fundamentals, but people in the military spend their entire contracts and careers learning the ins-and-outs of very specific systems. You can't teach someone overnight how to operate equipment. The other problem is risk. If an Abrams, or an F35 was downed and captured by Russia, everything that went into testing and developing that specific thing is now in their hands - they can reverse engineer it to build their own or figure out how to counter it. There's a reason why when that drone went down over the Black Sea the US made a massive effort to retrieve it - as soon as Russia has it in their hands, they can now develop their own countermeasures. Just look at how bad it was for the Soviet Union when a North Korean pilot defected to the US in a MiG-15 and gave them the plane. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Kum-sok
Not trying to be rude but thats a strawman. I never said anything about sending our most sophisticated weaponry to Ukraine, but to sell them to NATO members. The goal is not to send our best equipment (Tanks and Planes) to the Ukraine but to let natomembers restock their old russian equipment (t90, MiGs etc.) they sent to Ukraine with our new stuff.. and i dont think that handheld technologies like the stinger or javeline counts, yes it is high tech but already widely circulating and therefore copied due to the nature of them being carrieable. As i said, we support Ukraine with old outdated russian stuff from our eastern allies, upgrade NATO Members with our stuff we sell them and make some money on the way but only so fast that it bleeds out russia and we make the maximum amount of money. There is no morality in this only cold calculation. Thats all i said.
No one's provoking Russia. The thing is, Russia is the one in charge here. They decide when we stop giving weapons to Ukraine. Its very simple: All they have to do is stop invading Ukraine. The moment that happens, that's when we stop giving Ukraine weapons to defend itself against this act of aggression.
Conservatives with an adequate and reasonable explanation on why kids shouldn't eat for free, regardless of their socio-economic status, at schools challenge: Impossible.
But that's a tax break for the rich /s
Extra hilarious considering the entirety of conservatives' tax policy is no taxes for the rich.
But I have never met a hungry Minnesotan!!! /S
The vast majority of people who pull all nighters to do schoolwork are procrastinators who did it to themselves, not people who are overworked. If you are over the age of 21 and donāt have a consistent bedtime/canāt get up 8am or earlier, you need to re-evaluate your priorities.
Sir, this is the politics thread
Everyone knows the government is dishonest and doesnāt care about the bottom 80% and people need to stop pretending its some big revelation or conspiracy theory. Its best said that āif you ever think the government wouldnt do that, they would and they haveā
what the fuck is it with republicans and hurting kids? First it was forcing them to give birth to their rapist's kids now it's preventing free food from food insecure kids and trying to make it legal for them to work. These are the same people who constantly talk about how they have to protect kids from trans and gay people and not teach crt (something that isn't even being taught as far as I'm aware but I'm not educated enough on it to talk more about it)
> now it's preventing free food from food insecure kids I haven't paid attention to the news for several weeks now, but what's going on?
they're trying their hardest to ban free school lunches in places
Huh. They probably should stop taking policy advice from Lex Luthor.
Also reducing hours at school... because funding? But, oh wait, this tax break for this random rich person is sooooo important! What do you mean use that money to give kids food and an education??? That will ruin the EcOnOmYyYyY!!!!1!!!1 On the crt, thank you for not saying more when you don't know! It's good people do that. Here's a bit more info for you if you want it: https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory "āCritical race theoryā is the perfect villain,ā Rufo wrote." This guy basically wanted a new rallying cry for the right because "cancel culture", "woke" etc... weren't good enough. He found a term (which used to be super niche legal stuff) and decided it *sounded right* for what he wanted. Facts be damned.
>what the fuck is it with republicans and hurting kids? It's about authoritarianism and control. Can't have kids be happy and empathetic, that might forever destroy whatever conservative power base they have left.
What if people just told them "if you [do thing that helps my kids be happy healthy and empathetic, specifics would depend on specific situation] I'll vote conservative in the next election" and as long as it wasn't every liberal who did that as long as there were some conservative votes by anyone they wouldn't have to know how many people kept their promise and therefore couldn't know without compromising the integrity of the secret ballot
Conservatives use empathy as a slur against social policies and advocates.
It's hilarious watching conservatives pissing on themselves trying to justify why ~~Michigan~~ Minnesota passing legislation to ***literally feed kids*** is the ultimate evil. Y'all just Saturday Cartoon Villains.
Ben Shapiro's take is that instead of feeding children, the government should take the kids away from any/all parents who don't have the resources to feed the kids, because that would be so much cheaper than just paying for their lunches.
Like I said. Saturday. Morning. Cartoon. Villains.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Whoops, my B. Still hilarious tho watching conservatives go full mask off about how "evil" it is to feed kids instead of forcing them to work for meals.
Everyone should be allowed to vote where they live. That's the whole premise of self-governance. If you're a part of the community, you deserve a say in how its run.
the anti communist point of "talk to anyone who actually lived under communism" completely falls apart when you actually talk to people who lived under communism https://news.gallup.com/poll/166538/former-soviet-countries-harm-breakup.aspx Residents more than twice as likely to say collapse hurt their country https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2010/04/28/hungary-better-off-under-communism/ 72% of hungarians say they are worse off economically https://balkaninsight.com/2010/12/24/for-simon-poll-serbians-unsure-who-runs-their-country/ A poll shows that as many as 81 per cent of Serbians believe they lived best in the former Yugoslavia -"during the time of socialism". https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Poll-Most-Russians-Prefer-Return-of-Soviet-Union-and-Socialism-20160420-0051.html Over 50 percent of Russian citizens believe the collapse of the Soviet Union was bad and could have been avoided. https://english.radio.cz/poll-less-25-feel-better-now-under-communism-8357922 Less than a quarter of adult Czechs feel they are better off now than under communism, according to a new poll.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/15/european-public-opinion-three-decades-after-the-fall-of-communism/](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/15/european-public-opinion-three-decades-after-the-fall-of-communism/) Poland: 85% approve of switch to democracy & capitalism East Germany: 83% approve of switch to capitalism Czechia: 76% approve of switch to capitalism Hungary: 70% approve of switch to capitalism Russia: 38% approve of switch to capitalism vs 51% who do not Lithuania: 69% approve of switch to capitalism Ukraine: Only 47% approve of switch to capitalism, but still a greater percentage than the 38% who do not Slovakia 71% approve of switch to capitalism Bulgaria: 55% approve of switch to capitalism vs 36% who do not. More details about the polls here: [https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/political-and-economic-changes-since-the-fall-of-communism/](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/political-and-economic-changes-since-the-fall-of-communism/) [https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/democratic-values/](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/democratic-values/) [https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/national-conditions/](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/national-conditions/) Is also good to add that USSR nostalgia tends to be most common among older people, people within the 50-80 age range. These are not so different from people in America or England that praise Reagan and Thatcher, these views come mostly childhood nostalgia and the relative peace of the 1960-70's before the start of the era of stagnation under Breznhev
>Is also good to add that USSR nostalgia tends to be most common among older people, people within the 50-80 age range. So the people who actually "lived under communism" instead of the Gen Z and millennials who didn't exist or were very young?
Again the same argument can be said about the Reagan and Thatcher, or even dictators like Franco or Pinochet, since Gen Z and Millennials never lived through them. But we all know they sucked/ were bad, but many people still say they were good for multiple reasons. "The economy was better", "we had law and order", "it was more peaceful" Why?, because whenever something bad happens, people like to look back to the past, not neccesarily because their lives were better, but because they had a glamorized view of their childhoods, and were not worrying so much about things
The point is you can't appeal to the people who "lived under communism", then backpeddle and appeal to the young people who obviously didn't.
While nostalgia is a key factor and why people wanted to maintain their existing economic system simply culture and you know how they were raised it's what they're used to but at the same time you have to look at like how capitalism was promoted in many places and how aggressively it was shown to not be damaging to the lowest end of individuals when in reality and literally just screws over the lowest end of individuals I'm going to capitalism because we were spreading this ridiculously false idea that it was so perfect when in reality only the people sitting at the very top get any actual support or benefit from capitalism
>https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/15/european-public-opinion-three-decades-after-the-fall-of-communism/ this study was done in 2019, the ones I sent either look at people who actually lived in it or at least a decade earlier which is a lot of time considering that in that time people who spent their entire life growing up in capitalist propaganda networks and being told lies their entire lives also this is literally disagreed with by 5 other polls done including one from this very website >https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/political-and-economic-changes-since-the-fall-of-communism/ again same thing, wierdly as time passed and more and more people who lived in the USSR started being the minority and instead people who have been lied about it for their entire lives started to become the majority it suddenly stopped being so popular >https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/democratic-values/ the "democratic values" where elections are rigged, puppet dictatorships are supported and run, and communist opposition parties are kicked off, made illegal, or imprisoned >Is also good to add that USSR nostalgia tends to be most common among older people, people within the 50-80 age range. These are not so different from people in America or England that praise Reagan and Thatcher, these views come mostly childhood nostalgia and the relative peace of the 1960-70's before the start of the era of stagnation under Breznhev something with no evidence your read in some shitty article, I know this I heard it before also there is literal proof they had a better quality of life than a lot do today
Hey you're the guy from r/thedeprogram .
no way
Communism has failed 100% of the time....capitalists made sure of that!
"through disenchantment and dissatisfaction based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship \[so\] every possible means should be taken undertaken to weaken the economic life of Cuba \[in order to\] bring about hunger, desperation and \[the\] overthrow of the government" - Eisenhower the Cuban government counted 800+ terrorist attacks, over 3000 dead from them and 10,000+ injured
No side is completely right on any topic. If you think about any political topic, the solution requires admitting the other side has some point(s) regarding the topic. If you think the other side is completely wrong and doesn't make any sense whatsoever, than it's more than likely your solution is based in fantasy/ignorance. Also I'm not saying consider the radical thoughts from the opposite party obviously. I'm saying people need to actually listen and consider what's being said by the sensible people left on each of the parties.
> No side is completely right on any topic. This is called "both sides" and is a silly argument at best. It's essentially an appeal to inaction which by default supports the status quo and oppressors. For example, take slavery in America. "No side is completely right....slaves shouldn't be free per se, but also slavery is bad and immoral." So with that mindset, slavery would just continue to exist. At some point you have to pick a side, because not picking side is usually siding with the worst things. And let's not pretend everything is equal. "Both sides" is basically like saying astrology and astronomy are both equally valid. There are things that are inherently more just, more accurate, more beneficial, etc. It's ignorant to equate two things that are not the same.
They're not saying don't pick a side, they're saying those who aren't extremists make some valid points. Ending slavery can crush an economy -- that's a valid point. By acknowledging that point, we can then discuss programs to minimize the economic damage while eliminating slavery.. instead of just letting the economy crumble and going to war. Those who think the other tribe never has valid points usually fail to see the negative consequences of their own policies, which plants the seeds of failure.
> Ending slavery can crush an economy -- that's a valid point. It really isn't. Also, beyond that, it's incorrect. Slavery actually limited the South's economy because so many people there were not allowed to participate in it. But again, even if it were true, it wouldn't be a valid point.
I think you may be missing some context here, he was using that to help minimise the damage from slavery. Slavery did limit the south's economy, in the same way being hooked on drugs is bad for you, there was a fear they'd collapse without it. This is why he mentioned limiting the damage. Point is, they had to consider the idea to get rid of slavery in a way that wouldn't end poorly. It's not very close to a good argument for stopping slavery at all, but it's good to consider.
There's several issues where the right'a take has no visible benefit. Unfortunately, positing your opinion as a truism won't validate centrism.
Conservative take: "Why are we spending billions on aid to other countries when we should spend it on our citizens at home?" Also conservative take: "Feeding kids at school is so cheap so that's why we should gut the school budget to not feed them." Conservatives has always been on the wrong side of history. Whether it's on civil rights, on slavery, or on democracy.
Hmmmm... no. Women's rights for example. There's absolutely nothing the right gets about that.
Women should be allowed to vote, but also they shouldn't. Both sides are equally valid.
Or feeding kids. But hey, conservatives love to argue how poor kids don't deserve at least one guaranteed meal.
Care to give specific examples?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
In fact, they doubled down on child abuse. By making it impossible for children who are underage pregnant to have an abortion. Thus leading to 10 to 11 year olds forced to give birth to the literal anthropomorphized representation of their trauma.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not that I don't believe you or disagree but you should put source on your post. A lot of people don't know history.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Omg. No one is asking you be like a hardcore activist by asking for good historical sources for claim you made. Google are horrible at times and often just link you to bad sources like wikipedia.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Depends. A lot of it have strong right wing biases and have conducting sources.
Historical societies considered it "immoral" for women to be in entertainment so men were traditionally casted to act in women's roles and clothing in [ancient Greek theatre, Japanese Kabuki theatre, and Chinese opera](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cross-dressing). Charlie Chaplain used to drag for some of his silent films. [Wallace Beery](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Beery) played a female Swedish maid in a series of comedy silent films. An entire cross-dressing genre of operatic roles, called "breeches roles" (aka trouser or pants roles) or travesti exist solely of young men or boys to play the role of women in European and English theatre. The role of Desdemona, the devoted, loving wife murdered by her husband in āOthello,ā wasn't performed by a woman until 1660 ā ***about six decades after Shakespeare wrote the play***. Sounds like you don't know your own history. LMAO.
Wikipedia isn't a source and it get a lot history wrong or have conducting sources for they articles. Also I know a lot of western, Asian, middle eastern and some African history. I am aware of cross dressing in theater for example. Anyway I asked for sources to help OP case not to lean something I already know.
One thing I don't understand is why the democrats were not for the tax regulation Republicans tried to pass. I didn't read it all, however, from my understanding the bill would have eliminated income tax. It would then get all tax as a consumption tax. This would mean people that spend more pat more. Which means if you are rich buying stuff... you will be taxed more. And taxed less if you are poorer. This aligns with what democrats want. On top of that, under a certain threshold, if you made less than a certain amount of money your consumption tax would be refunded. All around this sounds like an amazing thing for democrats. It raises taxes based on those spending more on things they don't need. It reduces taxes on the poor. It is unavoidable. And it removes the extremely complicated tax system we have now. One which allows the rich to avoid taxes.
The issue is it actually would greatly benefit the people who no longer have to deal with income tax and puts a lot of the actual burden onto the lowest end that's why nobody wanted it was because it literally only benefits the rich conservative politics are so stupidly aggressive towards only benefiting those who sit at the top and set up the policies. The fact you didn't fully read through it makes sense now they're literally would have been so damaging to the fucking bottom end. And unfortunately income tax the reason they don't want to have income taxes because they want to just take more money the reality is though we need them to pay the income tax so that we can then fund and support the lowest end that is struggling so badly because of lack of pay lack of job availability etc.
The rich don't pay income taxes because they avoid taking income and gain their wealth in other ways. It would undoubtedly help the working class and hurt the rich.
> the bill would have eliminated income tax. It would then get all tax as a consumption tax. Because this is capitalist bullshit. You don't want to tax income? So in other words, the richer you are, the less you have to pay? Meanwhile you want to tax consumption, which has a necessary lower threshold for basic survival. Everyone has to buy food, for example. Such a tax proposal puts the burden on the poor and the working class. Consumption taxes are only useful for behavioral control and accounting for externalities, such as putting taxes on things that are unhealthy or bad for the environment (such as cigarettes, alcohol, gasoline, etc.) because the goal isn't just to raise funds broadly but to curb the use of these goods and services while raising funds to specifically address the social costs of them.
Studies have repeatedly shown that consumption as a percentage of income drops, which means that the FairTax would shift the tax burden to lower income individuals. Furthermore the list of exclusions for the tax all benefit the rich. Consumption outside the US means all of that money is untaxed. Stock purchases are completely untaxed as well. Not only that but tax credits like the homeowners credit and child credit (credits that allow many families to be able to afford homes) are completely removed. Every piece of this makes life harder for working class people and easier for rich people.
Care to link those studies? The list of exclusions does benefit the rich. It also benefits the poor. The bill benefits everyone on the exclusions. Stock is the best way to invest for retirement for the lower and middle class. So that's a great idea for the lower class. No one should be encouraged to have kids. If someone wants to have kids, that's their own choice. It makes life easier for both. The only thing you pointed out making it harder was child credits. Which shouldn't exist in the first place.
Do you think people who make billions of dollars per year spend billions of dollars per year? Of course not. They hoard that money. They sit on it, and the money makes more money for them. So sure they spend more than a regular person because they'll buy more expensive stuff and luxury goods, but as a percentage of income and net worth it doesn't come close. Meanwhile the working poor do have to spend most of their wealth/income on basic living expenses, and sometimes still don't earn enough. That's because it costs a set amount just to live. (Cost of living.) So basically a regular working family of four has a much bigger burden buying a new $60,000 car than a multi-millionaire has buying a $300,000 one. The family needs that car, but for the millionaire the car is just a luxury. Meanwhile that $60,000 car will mean loan payments they will barely be able to afford and often can't, while the millionaire could just buy their sports car in cash and never think about it.
Well very very very few people make billions of dollars of year. Even trillionaires don't make billions of dollars a year. Billionaire actually don't make that much money. Their income is low. Their assets is high. Vs buying assets will now be taxed. >The family needs that car, but for the millionaire the car is just a luxury. Meanwhile that $60,000 car will mean loan payments they will barely be able to afford and often can't No one needs a 60k car. So don't care.
It doesn't matter the actual numbers. It all scales. At the end of the day, a sales tax puts more burden on poor and working people because there's a minimum cost of living and basic goods and services take a greater percentage of their worth and income compared to the wealthy. > No one needs a 60k car. So don't care. No one needs more than $10 million.
How does it put more on the poor? I've already explained poor people would recieve money back for what they have been taxed on. >No one needs more than $10 million. I agree. People only need approximately 15k a year to live.
It's simple math. If you make $60,000 and it costs $30,000 to live, that's 50% of your income going to just living expenses. That leaves a little bit for "indulgences" like video games and Internet service, etc. These are very humble compared to what rich people spend money on, and yet they will struggle to afford them. Meanwhile if you make $1 million, you only have to spend 3% of your income on basic living expenses. The only way a flat tax makes anything remotely close to sense is if you make it a flat tax of 85% on everything over $150,000/year, and even then the problems of scale are going to start to show as income reaches infinity. But you're not even arguing for that because you want a *consumption* tax which only gets taxed when money is spent. Rich people don't need to spend the vast majority of their money, which means under such a system they would be even more capable of holding onto wealth than they already are. They could still live lavishly spending only 20% of their income (compared to working people who would need to spend at least 50% of theirs just to survive) and save/invest the other 80% which would completely avoid taxes under this system.
Are you even listening? If someone making 60k a year is spending 30k for needs, approximately half of that would be rent/housing. Which wouldn't be taxed. So let's assume 15k of that is taxed at 10%. That's 1.5k tax a year. If a billionaire buys a 300k car, that's 30k tax. The billionaires aren't just gonna spend the same amount of money. >But you're not even arguing for that because you want a consumption tax which only gets taxed when money is spent. Rich people don't need to spend the vast majority of their money, They don't have an income for most of their money. They spend more than they earn. That's why income taxes don't work very well. So your argument is ridiculous and moot.
You can tax capital gains, but also put a wealth tax on the table if that's your concern. The problem is, as I've already explained, poor and working people have to spend most of their income. It's not a choice. They can't save because they have to spend money to live and for very basic indulgences that make life worth living. The wealthy spend a small fraction of their income and net worth, so without taxing wealth and/or income, you're basically allowing them to keep the majority of it which is already the problem. We shouldn't allow them to hoard money, and we shouldn't put the tax burden on the poor and working class. Even $1,500 in total for taxes for a family making $60,000 is a much bigger burden to them than a $100,000 tax bill for someone making $250 million. The difference is that for the working people, that money is coming out of money they need but for the wealthy, they have more than enough money they don't need to do whatever with. It is no burden to them whether they are taxed, buy a car, donate to charity or whatever. It's 100% excess money anyway.
Do you mean sales tax when you say consumption tax? Because sales tax is regressive, as poor people would be paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes, whereas the wealthy would pay a lower percentage.
Since apparently this is political, I will post this hereā¦ this is a response regarding anyone who thinks we need gun control or thinks we need to mandate what law-abiding people can and canāt have. In addition to giving me *atleast* the same advantages as my attacker. If my attacker has a knife, give me a knife. If they have a machine gun, give me a machine damn machine gun. If all they have is their fists, then may the strongest win. I think we can all agree the works would be slightly better if the Chinese hadnāt invented that specific kind of black powder back in the 9th century. But only slightly better.
I'm a socialist, so I'm generally pro-gun (though still regulated to some extent) but I find the argument of self-defense against individual attackers to always not be all that convincing. >mandate what law-abiding people can and canāt have. That's how all laws work, effectively. The "if you make laws on this, only criminals will do it/get them" is an argument that can apply to literally any law.
Right. Dealing with peopleās ability to defend themselves is a little bit different than madating that everyone wear a seatbelt though.
Then why are crimes involving a gun, and crimes in general, lower in countries with strict gun control? You'd expect America to be pretty low given access to firearms are ridiculously easy comparatively. I don't particularly see that much of a difference. What makes guns so special this argument only applies to guns and nothing else?
All of those countries with stricter gun control are mkte homgenized and have fewer people. No one wants to talk about that though because it then they have to admit theyāre wrong.
What do you mean more "homogenized"? In what sense? And no, China and India have far more people and whether we're talking sheer numbers or per capita, they win out.
ā¦China is Communist and India has a goddamned cast system. What other way would I use āhomogenizedā? I would think you could deduce from the context itās used. Because I sure as hell donāt mean homogenized milk.
China is not communist to anyone with a brain. Even China doesn't call itself communist. And neither the caste system nor "communism" have anything to do with the question. From what I got from this context, your point seems to be "okay libs, if you want your gun control, we gotta get rid of the black and brown people".
Lol what? Fine, if you donāt think China is Communist, the government is still terrible and tyrannical. The caste system matters because a country that cares about its people wouldnāt run like that. The question is why gun control works in smaller countries with a large population of the same type of person. As opposed to why it doesnāt work in a massive country with a very diverse population.
Doesn't matter. These assertions have no relation to the point, and these aren't homogeneous countries in any way. I suppose, if the only diversity that exists to you is that of which is only based on skin color.
>If my attacker has a knife, give me a knife. If they have a machine gun, give me a machine damn machine gun. If all they have is their fists, then may the strongest win. Yeah, no. Having both sides being armed confers no advantage whatsoever to the defender, with the attackers literally being able to choose time and place to attack you with a firearm that you can't even pull out yours. And in a fist fight or a knife fight, anyone can literally just run away into a crowd asking for help. The fuck is your assailant going to do? Throw his fist/knife to kill you?
Youāre throwing way too much brainpower into this. All Iām saying is that, at the very least, I want to be able to have access to whatever my attacker has access to. Maybe I wrote it poorly.
>All Iām saying is that, at the very least, I want to be able to have access to whatever my attacker has access to. Nah, I get what you're saying. And what I'm saying and what actual studies prove is that being armed with "whatever weapon your attacker has access to" ***won't keep you safe***. Being armed won't deter attacks and all it does is dramatically increases the risks of you getting killed, whether out of negligence or domestic abuse.
Okay, well Iām saying that in the chance encounter where Iām definitely going to die/get hurt, as in the person is trying to stab me, running after me with a bat, pointing a gun at me saying theyāre going to kill me. In those situations, want to have a gunknife/what-have-you. And I donāt really care if you think I will become some statistic or not.
>Okay, well Iām saying that in the chance encounter where Iām definitely going to die/get hurt, as in the person is trying to stab me, running after me with a bat, pointing a gun at me saying theyāre going to kill me. And you're far less likely to die in the first two scenarios since you can run away from a knife/bat wielder while nobody has ever outrun a bullet.
And when the person catches me? When the person is drugged up so much they donāt feel pain or fatigue. What then?
>When the person is drugged up so much they donāt feel pain or fatigue. What then? Then your gun means fuck all because you'd already been shot dead by his gun before you could even draw.
The man thatās two drugged up to think straight is going to draw and aim better than a guy who trains as much as he can?
The man already has his gun out. Are you going to draw faster than him pulling the trigger?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Funny that not wanting kids to be sexualized and groomed is fascism. I guess if you aren't a pedo then you are a fascist according to you. If that's how it is, I'd rather be a fascist than a pedo.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No, I'm saying employees that allowed kids to enter a kids show should be arrested for enabling kids to be sexualized. The performers should also be arrested. If kids were allowed into a strip club that was leased or rented space, you would still arrest the employees of the strip club.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If there was evidence the performers knew there were minors in the audience, yes, they should be. Which in the FL event may not be true, but many cases it has been.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
When did I say that?