General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Right-Wing YouTube Conversion u0026 Deconversion Explained In Detail" video.

Really? His arguments are shallow
16
@TheHuxleyAgnostic many. Such as how inefficient government programs can be and how the US system is strong to begin with. Kyle has a handful of talking points and dismissed the other side. He is shallow
8
These people are either fake or not too bright. Is Kyle is changing you than you don't think deep enough
3
Stalin Steel , no one likes me because I provide evidence and sources from experts giving a counter viewpoints. What bothers me is that so many listen to Kyle but when I suggest a book, like "In Excellent Health" by an expert in healthcare, they dismiss it.
2
I doubt it. As you get older you become more conservative in general
2
@RawMaterialENT , when you get to the core, especially on economic issues, the political left bases their ideas on emotions and the political right bases their ideas on facts and reasoning.
2
I am a Trump supporter. You haven't been speaking to the right ones. Challenge me
2
El-ahrairah , a moderate.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic , saying other countries are more efficient is simply not true. As a whole the US system is on par with other nations. People die in every nation due to lack of access to healthcare.
1
@mrjollyguy25 , Kyle has shown the same handful of evidence and than goes on a appeal to emotion rant. There is little evidence that M4A will save money. National rankings are arbitrary as anyone can develop any ranking they want. And no nation covers everyone. Healthcare is the one topic Kyle is the most ignorant on.
1
@joshuajohn8870 , take medicare where it took around 40 years to finally cover prescription benefits http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Kate-Baicker.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690175/ Every system has inefficiencies.
1
@adithyasathya2578 , define "cover".
1
@adithyasathya2578 , I read those studies. The Mercatus Study assumed a 40% less payout to providers. Do you feel that providers will still offer the same quality of care when receiving 40% less pay? The UM Amherst study leaves out a lot of variables such as people moving and if they are willing to. Essentially, they treat people as pawns.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic , uh, the Commonwealth Fund ranking. To start, do you even know how it was developed? I doubt it. So I will tell you. They admitted that the US was number 1 in cancer survival rates but don't including that in their ranking. They include amenable mortality (where that is people dying due to lack of healthcare for curable diseases, goes against the narrative Kyle claims that no one dies due to lack of access in other nations), and something they called DALE. They don't say what DALE which is careless on their part, but it is "disability adjusted life expectancy. That's it. Amenable mortality has been challenged as an indicator of healthcare system https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823843 And life expectancy has been challenged in this book http://www.aei.org/publication/the-business-of-health/ In short, many factors outside of healthcare influence those stats. Reality is the Commonwealth fund is a private organization with a motive. But again, what makes them relevant? As for the WHO, it was criticized so much they have not developed a new one in nearly 20 years. Again, healthcare rankings are arbitrary.
1
@mrjollyguy25 , define "good rankings". I have seen the metrics used. They leave out a lot. Read my comment to "The Huxley Agnostic" on the Commonwealth Fund ranking. And how about you give me these "objective studies". Again, I suggest you read "In Excellent Health". Only one person linked me things.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic , I care about people, that is why I come here and why I read up on the topic. I understand that healthcare is far more complex than just pushing for a M4A system.
1
@bohemianwriter1 , no. A centralized government is inept.
1
@mrjollyguy25 , again, what studies?
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic , people die in every healthcare system. That is the reality. I am all for improving it but saying that people die is a poor argument.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic , and the US citizens are not willing to give up their insurance.
1
@bohemianwriter1 , the political right has legit arguments. You should look into them.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic , cancer measure is a great measure as it is survival rates. The US has high survival rates. And what is wrong with my AEI source? Notice how I actually broke down what was wrong with healthcare rankings while citing other sources? I didn't just dismiss them. Healthcare rankings are arbitrary. Many people look at life expectancy where many factors outside of healthcare influence overall life expectancy. For example, the US is number 1 in obesity rates of OECD nations, but none of those studies weigh for that. I wonder why........
1
@bohemianwriter1 , Kyle dismissed the other side constantly. He does so in situations like the min. wage and healthcare. He said there are no arguments against M4A when experts do argue against it. Take Katherine Baicker for example http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Kate-Baicker.pdf "On the other hand, a single payer system does not automatically provide high quality care: the provision of low-value care is as pervasive in the single payer Medicare system as it is elsewhere. Single-payer systems are also slow to innovate – as suggested by the fact that it took Medicare 40 years to add a prescription drug benefit, long after most private insurers had done so. Nor do calculations of the costs of a single-payer system measure the utility loss from forcing people with different preferences into a monolithic health insurance plan. The private facilities that have sprung up in Canada to meet the demands of those who want more health care than the public system provides fundamentally undermine the “single payer” nature of the system. " The very fact that an expert, along with other experts, disagree shows that there is an argument from the other side. The political right has had many legit arguments. Take the issue of wage stagnation and this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6FmhXQ32Wo&t=162s Building a single bomb is a drop in the bucket in terms of cost, especially compared to healthcare. Education is ran by the states, and define "basic". A major problem with the far left is that they say vague words with zero details. I am actually a moderate. Both sides have legit arguments. People like Kyle, though, who are on the far left, dismiss the other side and that is where zero progress is done. Kyle is a part of the problem.
1
@johnnonamegibbon3580 , I agree. The political left is eating fighting themselves and have nothing against Trump at this point so they have to make things up like Jussie Smollet did.
1
@mrjollyguy25 , and I mentioned their flaws.
1
meg50 , I do care about people dying, but you can't just say "people die" and expect that to be an argument. I need more information. For one, how does it compare to other nations? Next, of those dying, what was their overall health like? In the book "Being Mortal" the author there there discusses how people seek modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but really live only 5 or 10 months. So those people dying, if the receive care how much longer would they have lived? You give a pure emotional argument which shows how you think. You don't think with facts and reasoning, you think only with emotions.
1
@sawyerbass4661 , because healthcare is complex. You can't simply say M4A will fix the problem as you are ignoring many factors and variables. Watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e893Ky7iM6Y&t=376s Notice the TYT clip where the guy from Australia is talking about how a discussion of death panels need to be brought up and how the far left over simplifies this issue? "In terms of morality: We know some people die under the current system for reasons besides a false diagnosis or unreasonable fear of going to the emergency room. These people do not die under a single payer system." People do die in single payer systems due to shortcomings. Reality is that resources are limited, you can't just magically create healthcare out of thin air. "In terms of economics: The system costs roughly 15-20% less, while providing avenues to even lower costs through bargaining, overhead reduction and preventative care." That is a myth. It is arguable that Medicare has more overhead costs https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/#600001e5140d Also, even with access to care people's physical health does not improve. Bad health has a lot to do with diet and lifestyle https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321 So yes it is very complex. This is why there are books, studies and experts with opposing viewpoints.
1
@sawyerbass4661 , If a doctor sees more patients they will raise prices. Demand goes up prices go up.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic , I do care. The reality is that in every system people die due to lack of access. So you argument is poor as you feel M4A will suddenly give everyone access to care when it won't. 70+ measures in the CWF? Really? I saw two. There are questions on using those conditions which is why no academic sources create rankings, only special interest groups do. Even with access to healthcare people still have poor physical health as pointed out in this study https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321 Preventative care can be simply done with proper diet and exercise. A lot of people in the US have bad health because of poor lifestyle choices.
1
@sawyerbass4661 , demand in healthcare is fixed? Really? How? If someone does not have to pay they will seek it more. Under Bernie's plan eye and dental will also be covered so people will seek that out as well. And doctor pay will be the same? Under Medicare doctors receive a 40% pay cut. More doctors will open up? Med school acceptance rate is below 50%. Yes, doctors got the degree and they will jack up prices. What will stop them?
1
@mrjollyguy25 , I agree, the system works well in other countries for various reason. They also have shortcomings and when broken down they are no better than the US.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic , that 42,000 stat is deceptive. To start, is that number high, low or normal compared to the developed world? You can't say. Also, those 42,000 are poor and as Prof. Katherine Baicker said, bad health is associated with being poor. So you don't know if those 42,000 die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with. To extend, there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. And as mentioned in the book "Being Mortal", people look towards modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but really they live another 5 or 10 months. So if those 42,000 receive care and die 5 months later in pain and using up limited resources, is that a success? You talk about "coverage". Being covered and receive care are two completely different things. What source are you talking about with the 72 indicators? Even at that, from what I read they leave out a lot, especially in health care outcomes. Have you actually read the studies? I doubt it. I don't expect for people to do thing perfectly, but the reality is this. Most people are in bad health due to their poor lifestyle choices. The bad healthcare outcomes you point to are strongly connected to bad health choices such as higher obesity rates for example. Ignoring that is being intellectually dishonest. Why don't these healthcare rankings factor that in? Because they are pushing an agenda. " At least, if you have access to regular checkups, you might have someone to regularly suggest lifestyle changes." Not according to this study https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321 A health tax? So you want to control people's lifestyles? How far are you willing to go with this? This is what people on the right literally fear, government controlling our lives.
1
@lxverdant1837 , he doesn't say how we will pay for it. I listen to Kyle a lot. He just mocks that question as opposed to taking it on.
1
@sawyerbass4661 , so doctors will be willing to take a pay cut and still provide the same service? I have a hard time believing that. Let me ask you. If your boss cut you pay by 40% what will you do. Medicare arguably has higher overhead cost. Uh, a lot of engineering schools have high acceptance rate. Mine is over 80%. Almost every medical school has an acceptance rate below 50%. The goal of care is care, but people wan to make money. Again, if your boss cut your pay 40% what will you do? Saying every nation has it is flawed. One, they all have a different system. Two, they all have shortcomings. Three, they have different cultures. Saying it functions "fine" is a low bar to set. Horses were fine as transportation for years. So should we get rid of cars?
1
@johnpliskin8759 , the US system is strong which is why any type of reform is challenging.
1
Cuthulhu In the deep , You did not give me any studies. I have a hard time that Medicare for all, where Medicare is losing money now, will save money considering how the federal government is $20+ trillion in debt and other federal government programs led to higher prices. Take, for example, the student loan program. That led to tuition skyrocketing. When the government subsidize something prices go up because demand goes up and the providers have to raise prices.
1
@jorgebarragan5495 , Kyle provided two studies that have many flaws. In one of the studies he only gave a number in the abstract and, as usual, did not present what was actually in the study in how the price tag they gave to M4A was a low estimate and chances are it would cost much more. Bottom line, a nation that is $20+ trillion in debt I am highly skeptical will all of a sudden save money on something as complex as healthcare. People die in every nation due to lack of access to healthcare. Those people count, but there are many factors to it. In the US as prof. Katherine Baicker said, those who lack access are poor and bad health is associated with poverty. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? Hard to tell. Medicare four all is a debatable issue, that is why experts debate it. Take this speech by Katherine Baicker http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Kate-Baicker.pdf " On the other hand, a single payer system does not automatically provide high quality care: the provision of low-value care is as pervasive in the single payer Medicare system as it is elsewhere. Single-payer systems are also slow to innovate – as suggested by the fact that it took Medicare 40 years to add a prescription drug benefit, long after most private insurers had done so. Nor do calculations of the costs of a single-payer system measure the utility loss from forcing people with different preferences into a monolithic health insurance plan. The private facilities that have sprung up in Canada to meet the demands of those who want more health care than the public system provides fundamentally undermine the “single payer” nature of the system. " She references the Canadian system. A little advice for you, stop listening to Kyle and start seeking out actual experts in the field. Kyle is not an expert. He has a handful of talking points on the issues he discussion, especially healthcare. I come here providing numerous books and studies and his fan base, people like you, say the issue is not up for debate. If it isn't than why do experts debate it? Oh.......I forgot.....according to Kyle those who oppose M4A are simply corrupt. Really, how can you take Kyle seriously at this point?
1
@jorgebarragan5495 , Medicare four all will be funded by an increase in the payroll tax, that is bad for businesses as they will pay higher taxes. Now the employer will have to worry about paying for higher taxes. Let me ask you, why do employers pay their employees with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage? Think about it. Medicare for all will not save people money unless they are poor or the federal government drives up the debt. M4A will not save me money but will actually cost me money. Also, what other ways do we pay? Lower quality? Delayed access? No more personal doctors? You are assuming that government will be paying for the current quality we have. A major problem of the far left is that they want the benefits of capitalism but the security of socialism. It doesn't work that way. Here is a great video on that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e00tPtBRUg In healthcare the far left wants the quality we have but it being paid for by the government and placing everyone on the payroll. It doesn't work like that. As for raising taxes on the rich, that won't work. The far left looks at Denmark, Sweden and Norway but don't realize they fund their system through taxing everyone on a tax system that is more flat than what we have. Watch this video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQwBA2QlJ3w&t=24s Simply taxing the rich will not pay for these things. You need to tax everyone. Good luck with that.
1
@jorgebarragan5495 , we don't have a free market healthcare system. We have a heavily regulated and subsidized system. In a free market system insurance companies won't have that much power. But because of laws in place by the federal government they do. I love how the far left destroys a system with government and then claims that we simply need more government. To me the far left is like the person with the abusive spouse. When the spouse beats them instead of leaving they have a kid feeling that is when the spouse will behave. So when government fails you more government will work this time.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic " Zero people are dying DUE to not having coverage" 100% factually wrong. Look up "amenable mortality". If you can't get basic facts correct we cannot begin to go into opinions. " Nobody can die, DUE to lack of coverage, if everyone has coverage. " Being "covered" and having "access" are two completely different things. In the US everyone, on paper, is offered a K-12 education system. Does that mean everyone gets the same quality? Or in S. Africa, everyone has a right to a home, but they have homeless people there. Saying no one dies due to lack of "coverage" is a very low bar to set. I, on the other hand, have much higher standards. I want people to have access and not just be "covered" on paper. "You just seem to want to control for every tiny little thing, in some lame attempt to argue it's impossible to find the US system is bad, or that it's impossible to compare to others and find it's worse. You know that would also mean it's impossible to find the US system is good, right? But you've tried to argue that it is. If it's impossible to measure, if all measures are completely arbitrary, then you've got zero grounds for arguing it's a good system." I said the US system in on par with other nations. It has flaws, but so do other nations. Case in point, you really have to lower the bar to defend those nations by saying no one dies due to lack of "coverage". I am saying people due die in those nations due to lack of access. Saying "coverage" is flawed. Consider this scenario. Say you have a deserted island with 4 people and 3 sandwiches. There they say everyone has a right to a sandwich and make it a law there on paper. In there end there are still 4 people and three sandwiches. With healthcare saying people are "covered" does not mean they have access. "The Commonwealth Fund study. You know, the doctor run organization. Not the American Enterprise Institute, run by Ayn Rand types. " Still a private entity with a motive. Tell me what was wrong with the AEI source I referenced? You did not give any reasons. I did with the CWF study. For example, they used amenable mortality as an indicator where this study argues that is flawed https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823843 https://jech.bmj.com/content/67/2/139 You see the difference between me and you? I have higher standards and I actually read opposing viewpoints and give counter arguments with evidence. I just don't pull logical fallacies. Also, I find it ironic how you cite the CWF study where they used amenable mortality. A definition of that "Mortality amenable to healthcare is a measure of the rates of death considered preventable by timely and effective care. " https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/indicator/quality/mortality-amenable-healthcare/ But you said that no one dies in other nations due to lack of access......Oh, that's right, you lowered the standard to "coverage". "So, how do you think that diabetes and depression management would play out over 20 years, or more? How do you think the increased visits would affect the elderly, and children?" Uh, now here is the moderate in me. I do support some form of government provided healthcare. I feel it should be done at the state and local level. There are advantages to it such as lower stress and security. But a problem with government ran system is lack of progress. Government gets in the way of progress. Watch this video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e00tPtBRUg As said in the end people want the benefits of economics dynamism but want the security of economic stagnation. You can't have both. You need to pick one. A M4A system will be economic stagnation as government has no incentive to improve on the system they have now as there is no competition. Again, I support some form of government provided healthcare, but it should be managed locally. There are benefits, but going to a complete government ran system would lead to stagnation. "Firstly, you were the one all concerned, and singling out lifestyle choices, not me. That's a way to deal with lifestyle choices. Are you opposed to speeding and seatbelt laws" Speeding is you putting other lives in dangers. Seat belt laws are in place because of mandatory insurance which exist because of liability. We can discuss that as well. "Secondly, you right wingers " I am actually a moderate, not a right winger. Way to label me when you don't even know me. "eem to be willy nilly with your support, or disdain, for consumption costs/taxes. You're perfectly good with corporations making billions using public roads and infrastructure while paying little to nothing for those things, want parents or students to cover their own education costs, want people to cover their own private healthcare costs, but if healthcare goes public you don't want people who make shit choices to pay a little more towards it. " If you want to discuss taxes we can. To me the only federal taxes should be either a tax on the state as it was pre 1913, or a flat income tax with a consumption tax. No corporate taxes but also no payroll taxes. States can run their own tax systems. Roads are a drop in the bucket in terms of overall cost, plus 3/4 of funding for roads is state and local. If you are talking about college education that is a personal investment you make as an adult. Just like an adult invests to start a business, you invest to get an education. That is the real value in a college education. You can teach most of the subjects yourself. The value is in the investment part. On healthcare, at what point do you make people pay for their own things? "That's not "controlling" your life. That's simply charging you an extra fee for an express lane pass to needing healthcare. Like higher car insurance for young or bad drivers. Like higher life insurance for smokers." That is a part of the free market, not some government mandate. There is the difference . Please learn it. Not to be rude but you are a radical leftist. If you want to pick my brain you can, but right now you have a grossly over simplified approach to these issues. They are far more complex than you realize. You calling me a right winger and pointing to roads (which are mainly funded locally) really shows that.
1
@uzumakiangelus , people die in every system. Also, it is a question of do they die due to lack of access or due to them being in bad health to begin with? It is hard to determine.
1
@jorgebarragan5495 , what is wrong with profits? Profits is where growth happens. The problem is that in our healthcare system we have a for profit system with many government regulations and subsidizes that give insurance companies too much power. In a free market system in order to generate a profit insurance companies will have to serve us which means actually provide us a high quality service.
1
@jorgebarragan5495 , M4A is a radical idea as you are talking about completely dismantling our current system and replacing it. That is radical anywhere in the world. Our system we have right now is on par with other nations when you break it down. At that point you fix the current system you have, not completely dismantle it.
1
@jorgebarragan5495 , the US offers higher quality of care as seen in higher survival rates. We have more R&D and we offer more care in general as seen by the fact we offer more CT scans per capita. You say everyone is "covered" in Canada which is a low bar to set. Being "covered" and having access are two completely different things. If everyone is "covered" in Canada why so people die waiting for "elective" heart surgery? If someone supports M4A they are a far leftist as it is a radical idea. Just like completely removing Medicare in itself is a radical idea. You can't take extreme routes, you need a moderate approach. Establishing M4A will completely destroy our economy as government will be centralizing 1/6 of our economy and will be changing it radically to where investors will sit until the economy is stable. As for polls, they are unreliable. They are vague questions on complex issues being asked to people who are not experts on them. If you were to rephrase the questions of the poll and give more information opinions will change. Plus, a poll is a snap shot, not a forecast. "But a lot of them have changed their minds. A poll is a snapshot, not a forecast." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/howcan-a-poll-of-only-100/ That is another sign of a far leftist. Instead of having facts and reasoning to your argument you point to opinion polls. I am all for reforming our healthcare system, but we can't be extreme about it. And you have to come up with better arguments than "other nations do it" or "everyone will be covered" or "there are polls". Those are shallow arguments. Healthcare is complex.
1
@Fuckjaredmilton , why single payer will not be better? The main reason is because of progress and quality. Where is the incentive for the federal government to provide a high quality produce in healthcare? And where it the incentive for government to progress in healthcare and improve the system? You may say that the people will vote them out, but there are several flaws there. Here they are 1. There is more issues than just healthcare. 2. People are ignorant all around and are easily fooled by politicians 3. No competition There are more but the last one is key. Without competition there is no desire for one provider, government in this case. to actually improve the system. Also, there is no comparison. We, the people, can't tell if what government is offering us is really the best that is possible as there is no comparison. Having one provider leads to lower quality as you have no competition and no comparison. As for the 30,000 stat, that is deceptive. To start, people die in every nation due to lack of access. So is that number high, low or the norm? Next, as prof. Katherine Baicker said, those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with being poor. So you don't know if they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with. To extend, there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. Also, as mentioned in the book "Being Mortal", people point to modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but really live another 5 or 10 months. So if those 30,000 receive care but live only 5 more months in pain using up limited resources, is that a success? A problem with the far left and M4A supporters is that they are unwilling it take on the tough questions. They have unrealistic expectations in that they want government to cover everyone and have everyone have the same high quality care. That simply isn't possible. Healthcare is complex and challenging and you have to take on tough situations. The far left isn't willing to. The far left wants the successes of capitalism but the security of socialism. Or as put near the end of this video, the successes of economic dynamism but the security of economic stagnation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e00tPtBRUg You can't have that.
1
@Fuckjaredmilton , I read that study. You claim I ignore it but in reality I actually read it and can criticize it unlike far leftists who continue to ignore the sources I gave. That study as flaws, the main one is that it treats people as pawns. They admit M4A will lead to job loss but they factor in providing people new jobs and helping them relocate to them. It isn't that easy. To start, how many will be willing to relocate? What about those who have kids in schools that don't want to leave their friends? Or those who have loved ones nearby? Simply telling people to move is not that simple and rather fascist. Also, you can't predict the cost of moving as you cannot factor in the changes in the housing market. People leaving one city means those homes will drop in price and the original buyers may end up with a loss, and the new place they relocate will increase in price. That study does not factor that in. And This is scratching the surface. I can go on but here are two other experts on the issue https://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2019/01/03/new_study_championing_medicare_for_all_is_bogus_110854.html So my question to you is why do you blindly follow something? Why don't you dig deeper? Also, you do realize that UM Amherst's economic department is left leaning and has favored Bernie? Thus, there is a bias. So no, I am not ignoring those things, I actually read them and dig deeper unlike you who blindly follows it. Blindly following something is simple minded which leads to simple ideas like M4A on complex issues.
1
@JohnKobaRuddy , Stephen Michael Davis has videos criticizing Kyle that are informative.
1
@Fuckjaredmilton "because none of the countries that I listed have anyone died from a lack of Access to Health Care." 100% false. Every nation suffers from amenable mortality. What is funny is that far leftists cite the Commonwealth Fund which uses amenable mortality as an indicator but turn around and say no nation has people dying due to lack of access. Pick one. The number is no zero in other nations. If you want to discuss opinions we have to get facts correct first.
1
@moestietabarnak or a sign of gaining more experience or simply refusing to change.
1
@jojoboko6990 , beliefs are different. Economically is where people become more conservative. Even at that with beliefs people don't change much. Society does, but not individuals.
1
@randyozaeta1026 , it was the Federal Reserve that caused the crash, not capitalism.
1
@BBQcheese , Noam Chomsky? The same guy who praised Venezuela? Chomsky is a great example of a guy who sounds smart but isn't.
1
@_lil_lil , ok, so you don't represent the norm.
1
@StJiub-lc4eb , that isn't capitalism.
1
I agree.
1