Status

Recent Statuses

6 mos ago
Current #FreeMyBoyNyt
7 mos ago
March onward, brothers and sisters. We will not be silenced. #diapergate
1 like
7 mos ago
He who sacrifices the right to shitpost for some temporary security, deserves neither shitposts nor security. #diapergate
3 likes
7 mos ago
If appointed moderator following the dethroning of the current staff as a result of #diapergate, I swear to do absolutely nothing. Under my moderation, shitposting will go unpunished.
4 likes
7 mos ago
#diapergate
1 like

Bio

User has no bio, yet

Most Recent Posts

But.. I was told confronting racists on the streets would only embolden them... how could this be? Shouldn't there be millions of nazis marching in the streets right now? I cannot believe putting nazis down actually worked, no.. this is impossible.
How long until you delete or edit that post like you do every other time you insult someone here or at the Discord to avoid bans? You have the courage to call someone a shit-flinging monkey and insult their intelligence, but it fades away within minutes and you take it all back because you're afraid of the consequences. Notice how I didn't insult you once, just pointed out an inconsistency and the humor I found in it and in the sources you provided, but I guess being called out really gets to you, huh? Mr. NOBODY-WANTS-TO-BE-CIVIL-IN-THE-POLITICS-THREAD-REEE is suddenly a-okay with insulting people.
I absolutely love how you unironically linked to conservapedia and newcriterion. Then you complain when people call out your sources as being extremely biased and/or opinion pieces by conservative writers. I mean, really dude, you're setting yourself up and destroying your own credibility when you do this shit, it's funny. It's also very telling that the conservapedia page is like 70% devoted to controversies, lmao. Totes a legit source. And didn't you criticize me when I linked to a wikipedia article defining social democracy? H I L A R I O U S. Wikipedia = bad and easily manipulated, conservapedia = totes legit and trustworthy. Get real.

---
I am such a fact-based, unfeeling person that the sight of a burning piece of cloth sends me into a frenzy.
<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

<Snipped quote by Me>

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

See own previous statement for example?

Seriously though, School is one of those things.


Healthcare is debatable, but the belief that public education is a bad thing is ridiculous.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

I've honestly never heard anyone claim that social security was loved.


Aight, let's just take away people's social security, then. No one will complain.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

How would you go about implementing 'free' healthcare and higher education? Especially, without reshaping how many systems in America currently work entirely?


Are you sitting down right now?

Tax the rich.

That's one thing we can do, anyway. But I also think we can cut back on wasteful spending in general. We wasted trillions of dollars in useless wars overseas. That's money that could have been used for the purpose of implementing these social programs. The idea that we don't have the money to do it, but fucking Montenegro does, is absolutely ridiculous.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

If something is simple, you should be able to explain it. You have not.


Dawg, I've given you examples of exactly what it is I mean multiple times. I've repeated myself so many times that I was honestly becoming self-conscious and beginning to wonder if maybe I was repeating myself too much.

You've said a lot of what it isn't, rather than what it is.


I have explained what it is and what is isn't, multiple times.

And the only clarifications you do make are easily refuteable/debateable.


Anything political and economic is debatable. As for refutable... well, you've yet to refute anything soo...

It's not for no reason, it's to point out a fundamental flaw in an idea. (Which is basically my whole point.)


But you haven't... All you've done is repeatedly misunderstand and miss the point, leading me to have to explain the same thing in multiple ways, multiple times to the point where I had to debate with myself on whether or not I'd like to keep replying to your comments because it's starting to become maddening.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

Which would obviously be different wages, based on what person you are,


Uh, no. This would be a set minimum wage, essentially.

where you live,


Maybe, sure. What's the problem? A living wage would be different in the UK, because living standards are different country to country. In the US, we can calculate what an appropriate living wage is state-by-state.

how many live with you,


???

No.

A living wage would account for the cost of utilities, transport, food, child care, ect, but it would not be based on how many people live in the house. Unless we're talking about children the person might have, in which case that falls under child care. If you have an adult living in your house who doesn't have a job, I don't think that's something that's going to count towards what the living wage should be.

how many pets you have,


lmao. No.

A pet would be something you chose personally to get and care for on the side. This is like saying that the living wage would be different based on how many TVs you have.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

That couldn't have been a more appropriate oxymoron. 'well-defined' 'somewhat' (Kinda-sorta not really.)


Okay.

You knew what I meant, didn't you? Shit's simple.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

Phones are a commodity in every sense of the word. You do not need phones to contact people. Also since you admitted phones are essential would that imply they'd be under 'the living wage'. What phone/service provider do they get?


No. You don't understand what a living wage is and this question right here proves it. This is mind-boggling.

Furthermore, I never said phones were a basic necessity that I would include in the definition. I said they're pretty essential these days so I would not fault people for getting one.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

When my point is, you cannot possibly know what certain people 'basically' need to live.


Literally wat.

We absolutely know what a person needs to live. Food, shelter, utilities. In some places that might extend to healthcare, as well, but not here because we're still busy debating whether or not we should let poor people die when they get sick.

--

I'm not going to reply to the rest of what you wrote because it's basically you completely refusing to understand basic concepts and pretending like it's me that doesn't understand. Should have listened to myself when I thought about just not bothering to reply.

But for the record, no, I'm not an expert in economics and I never said I was or pretended to be. Thing is, neither are you, so I'd appreciate it if you stopped pretending like you know what you're talking about anymore than I do. I think we both have strong opinions on what we think would work. I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me, and that's fine. But these are nothing more than our opinions and our own personal defense of what we think works or would work.
<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

'I feel that's kind of what we already have in many ways,


Some things are in place, like public education, but I'm talking about higher education as well, and healthcare.

and a lot of those social elements are very poorly handled.


Some of our social elements, like social security, are actually universally loved and approved of by people on both sides of the political spectrum. Are there issues here and there with the way we do certain things? Of course. Regardless of whether it's a social program or not. Nothing is perfect.

It seems that a lot of problems facing America currently have almost always not a free-market economy, but some horrible hybrid.


Like?

Could you provide some specific examples to what you might be describing? What problem do you think a 'mixed-bag system' solution would be useful for? Can we really pull random bits from other nations, and just stick them here? As people like Bernie Sanders may imply, when he talks about 'Literacy Programs' of Nicaragua. Is that what you believe will work?


I've already given some examples of things I'd like to see socialized. Healthcare and higher education should be free. If you want the option to go to a private school that you pay for, or want specialized healthcare that you pay for, those options should also be there. When I think of a hybrid system I am thinking about the Scandinavian way of doing things.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

I wouldn't exactly want a free government car. Nor can I imagine how'd you'd implement such a thing realistically...


I don't know if you misunderstood, but... I didn't say people should get free government cars.

But now, it's comfortably/'with dignity'. So again I'd have to ask, who decides that exactly? In a world with people's nature, who desire for more...


Jesus, man, it's simple. Comfortable doesn't mean you get a Jacuzzi. It means you have the basic things needed to live without having to worry about putting food on your table. It means not living paycheck to paycheck with no room for improvement because you're stuck in an endless loop where you're just barely getting by. Dignity just means you aren't living in the gutter. You're complicating things for no reason. Yeah, sure, people have desires. What's your point? I didn't say the government needed to pay for people's desires.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

What's a living wage? Do you think that answer is the same across the board or that all people will be satisfied with the number you give?


Basically what I said above. Living wage is actually somewhat well-defined:

A living wage is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their basic needs. This is not the same as subsistence which refers to a biological minimum.


It basically means enough to live in decent, standard conditions.

I think there's a shred of truth to that, I think some people can turn their noses at people problems because they've not experienced the same struggles. The sorts that claim we can't afford houses because of avocado toast, are tools who the sensible can laugh at. Though yes, people that spend hundreds on a phone and expensive clothes and drugs and alcohol would do a lot better in the world saving their money.


Drugs and alcohol, sure. Phones are pretty essential these days, though.

You mentioned you don't agree with equal outcomes, but equal opportunity. But set basic incomes wages for existing...isn't that. And even that can be heavily exploited depending how it's implemented.


I think we already talked about how equal outcome refers to basic things, and a living wage is, again, a means with which to provide those basic things. I don't see how these two things are at odds. If you have a higher education and are more successful, you are going to work a better job that pays more. No one is saying that even highly educated people should be limited to a living wage, or that a poor person with no education should be given a paycheck comparable to the one given to a CEO.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

Oh. I mean the "give everyone lots of money so that everyone is comfortable."


I didn't say lots. A living wage is not "lots of money." It's literally the minimum income necessary for basic needs.

Give people money every month to 'live with dignity', and the problems of gambling addictions and people bad with money, etc will be solved...


I definitely didn't say that. The closest thing I said to that is that if people aren't having to worry about basic needs they are more likely to be able to afford a car (even if cheap), so transportation becomes an issue that is fixed naturally by paying people a basic, living wage.

I was simply theorizing what "basic" means in such context. Since you weren't specific. But you even had to add the word comfortable, so okay...do you think someone should live without two legs? I can't imagine it's a comfortable life. So why not have free prosthetic limbs surgeries?


Comfortable doesn't mean you're completely free of inconvenience or that you live in luxury and have no problems whatsoever. It means you have all the basic needs required to live in decent conditions. Someone without legs can still live in a decent apartment that isn't falling apart around them while they worry about bills and food because they aren't paid enough to be able to juggle all the costs. Comfortably means you aren't worrying about those things because at the very least you have enough to pay the bills and put food on your table.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

Well that certainly isn't what the Wikipedia article on what being a social democrat is.


Well, then read again.

From the article:
Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy.


In this period, social democrats embraced a mixed economy based on the predominance of private property, with only a minority of essential utilities and public services under public ownership. As a result, social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism and the welfare state, while abandoning the prior goal of replacing the capitalist system (factor markets, private property and wage labor)[4] with a qualitatively different socialist economic system.[8][9][10]


Social democracy, at least the way it is often called for in the US, seeks to work within the framework of a capitalist society. Meaning it aims to put social/public policies in place, without completely getting rid of privatization. So much so that it is/was criticized by actual socialists for having more or less surrendered to capitalist ideas by aspiring to work within the capitalist system as opposed to completely destroying it like socialists want to do. Social Democracy is a compromise.

Well thankfully, you need a license to buy any gun. (Among other things.)


I didn't say anything about gun licenses. I said it's harder to get a driver's license than it is to legally get a gun.

Well I'm not fact checking anyone here. What do you think the problem is when it comes to people making poor health and lifestyle choices? Is it solely because of Capitalism and overabundance? Well, the U.K actually is the 6th 'fattiest' in population above the United States. So probably not. Cheapest food? (Kind of goes hand in hand.) So feel free to give me your speculation. (If you want...)


Bad food is cheap. Poor people buy cheap food. We have a lot of poor people. And yeah, to an extent I think it also comes down to shitty dietary choices. But I don't know, I'm just guessing.

Who exactly decides what 'basic' things people need? We that be enough to satisfy creatures that desire? Okay, so now fancy car. Well, is transportation a basic thing? If not, why not? Everyone does it, everyone needs to do it. Right?


I wouldn't consider a car a basic need, but even if we did consider it a basic need for the sake of argument, it's a problem that would be solved with better salaries. There's a lot of poor people out there who have so many things they have to pay (and barely have the money to) that a car, for a lot of them, is too much to get and maintain on top of everything else. A living wage is not just about paying people enough to live; it's about paying people enough to live comfortably and with dignity.

If so, where does that rabbit hole go? Free bikes? Probably cheaper and more environmentally friendly than cars, so yeah why not?


Again, pay people living wages so they aren't struggling with basic necessities and everything else (like transportation) becomes accessible to them as a result. If they want to get a car with the money they have left after the basic needs are covered, cool. A bike? Great. I don't think people in the richest country on earth should have to live with only just enough to survive. Ideally, I want people to have enough for their basic needs, but also something extra to put into the economy. I see a lot of people on the right who seem to find it outrageous to think people should have a little spending money. You hear it a lot from the "just save your money!" crowd and it's ridiculous. [incoming sarcasm] How dare people want to enjoy their lives a little? They should just pay their bills and save everything else even if it means living in an empty apartment. Spending money on furniture and TVs is sooo irresponsible. Oh, and their phones. How fucking dare they.

How about people that can't ride or have no legs? Should they get a free robotic leg? Obviously, everyone -has- two legs. That's a basic thing. People born blind or deaf, they obviously need free surgery to get as close to normal as possible. Retarded? Hmm...didn't even scratch the surface, but it already seems rather complicated for 'basic things' right?


You're doing something a lot of right-wingers do.

Someone says "hey, there's a problem with X" and they try to offer a solution, but if the solution doesn't solve literally every conceivable problem, it's a bad one. Life doesn't work that way. Sometimes we have to inch our way towards progress. You can't wave a magic wand and fix every aspect of every problem. Sometimes a solution only patches three out of four holes, but having three holes patched up is better than none.

I actually agree in multiple ways with that. I think at least the idea of disliking the establishment party has never been a stronger sentimental for the younger generations. I know you don't like Trump, but his win will bring forth people would normally turn their noses at. People with non-political careers. Younger sorts, perhaps even more diverse in the label sense and intellectually. I don't consider this a negative at all. I certainly think more politicians, and presidents will (or at least try) become successful by not playing the moderate or milquetoast game. The right, the left both farther on the spectrum. Thus the options, may very well feel like-choices. I sincerely hope more people like her, in general and specifically try for a political position. Maybe even have a third party getting enough votes to make both parties sweat bullets, and actually feel like they have to try to earn their civilians vote. A man can dream.


Well, color me surprised. I figured you'd hate her.

Also, I'm not googling it. So I wouldn't know. But the 'Anti-LBGT stuff', I would only assume the 'T' part would be more likely to be brought up. Since that is more of the 'hot button' issue. (If I'm incorrect, please share if you find anything particularly egregious.)


The first few results that came up for me were to do with regular gay marriage, not trans rights.

I think to an extent it's an old vs new thing, because even on the left there are people like Hillary who were anti-gay marriage until relatively recently, but I think the right is by far more anti-LGBT than the left. Like, it's not even a contest. Hands down, the Republican party is the anti-LGBT party. That may be slowly changing, but it still has a long way to go.

So you believe in a socialist system of government achieved through 'majority rule'?


Mostly I am for a mixed economy. I think the best we can achieve in the US is a capitalist economy with strong social elements.

I know you're not fond of firearms. (Or I guess have been lead to believe such, is a more fair statement.)


I don't want to ban guns. I just think there should be more regulation. And I'm not talking about making it near impossible to get a gun. I'm talking about logical shit like universal background checks and waiting periods. Getting a gun shouldn't be easier than getting a driver's license.

Do you have any problems with drugs? (Assume not.) But if not, how far do you think that rabbit-hole should go? Decriminalization? Legalization?


I honestly think drugs should just be legalized, with very few exceptions like those drugs that literally rot your skin off. Legalize drugs, tax them, make bank, and simultaneously cripple illegal drug trade. I think a lot of the problems we see with cartels would probably go away if their product was made legal. Fighting the war on drugs is a waste of time and money and it's ruining people's lives over non-violent drug offenses.

How about food? Being socially liberal, would you oppose things like higher taxes on soda? Or banning certain fatty/high calorie foods? Like New York's soda ban for example.


I haven't really put much thought into this. I think Americans' diets are dogshit and I see why we would want to discourage unhealthy foods, but at the same time, it's up to the individual. If you want to drink soda until you're diabetic that's your business. I don't know if I'd go as far as increasing taxes on soda, but again I haven't really thought about it.

You don't disagree with the ideas, like pushing for equal outcomes over equal opportunity,


I don't think this is true; I think this is a right-wing meme. I don't know of anyone on the left who thinks everyone, regardless of education, financial success, ect should end up in the same place. I think when people on the left advocate for "equal outcome" it's not in all things. What they mean is everyone should be guaranteed a certain degree of *basic* means with which to live. A living wage regardless of who they are, healthcare, ect. They're not saying a poor person should be guaranteed a BMW. They're saying they should be guaranteed basic things.

you just believe most of their ideas should be cranked to the 11th? So to speak.


No, I think a lot of mainstream democrats are against left-wing ideas like free college and healthcare, among others. There are a lot of democrats who scoff at the idea and are more concerned with lining their pockets with donors' money to keep peddling corporatist policieswhile the average person struggles to put food on their table. Those democrats, I think, are more centrist than they are leftist. People like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, among others, but also people in media trying to push for a Biden candidacy are just ridiculous. They're out of touch. I think the party as a whole should lean more to the left and start working towards actually serving the people instead of special interests. I want fewer Hillarys and more Bernies. I don't think it's radical to want people to have access to higher education regardless of their economic background; I don't think it's radical to not want people to die because they don't have access to healthcare, or can't afford it. So I wouldn't say I want to turn it up to 11. I just think right now it's at like 4.

Are you fond of either Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?


Yes.

How do you feel Alexandria has been displaying herself as of late? Do you feel her win shows that there's many on the far left who have similar opinions to you about the democratic party not going far enough?


I think she's doing alright. There are certain things I think she needs to work on, and I'm not fond of her calling herself a democratic socialist, because she simply isn't. She's a social democrat. I do think her win (and the subsequent uptick in people joining the Democratic Socialists of America) does show there are many people in the Democratic Party who think we should go further left. In fact, I think most politically active young people on the left do. I think she generated a lot of excitement and interest.

Or is it just because the jack-off didn't even acknowledge her and skipped a debate, and got a taste of karma?


That may have had an impact, but he was a 20 year incumbent, so I don't think she just got lucky. She did her job, ran a good campaign, and appealed to the interests of people in her district. She earned the win.

Just curious. Do you know any popular/well-known major conservative person who has "no/overturn gay marriage" as the focus of their platform? I can't think of any. Is there a specific example you have in mind?


I mean, literally the Vice President.

EDIT: "Focus" is a pretty narrow qualifier. I think we'd have to go down to like, religious fundamentalists to find someone who has made it their "focus" to overturn gay marriage. But I think a lot of people on the right are against gay marriage as a secondary thing that isn't their main focus. Pence being one of them. I literally googled "republicans who are against gay marriage" and found several results showing anti-LGBT legislation being passed (or attempted) by Republicans as early as last month in some states.

Neo-liberals are for economic liberalization, which includes deregulation and free trade, which often times puts them in the same camp as conservatives. Modern-day neo-liberalism is associated very heavily with Laissez-faire capitalist ideas, which again, is more of a right-wing thing. "Hard" mode.

EDIT: And I didn't say neo-liberals are right-wing. I said they have a lot in common.
© 2007-2017
BBCode Cheatsheet