Comments by "Matthew Ingerson" (@matthewingerson) on "Secular Talk"
channel.
-
44
-
20
-
18
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
Krystal, Kyle, & Privilege -- that's the name of the show.
It's evident that the inherent, randomized suffering imposed upon working-class people by right-wing politics hasn't affected Krystal nor Kyle enough in their lives to induce a deeper empathy for those who suffer most.
It's not surprising to me why Krystal & Kyle BOTH hold moderate right-wing political beliefs -- their socioeconomic lifestyles exist because of right-wing politics.
Krystal & Kyle were BOTH lucky in the super-random, supernatural, socioeconomic birthing-lottery -- just like Musk, Bezos, Trump, and lowly Joe Biden, were ALL lucky.
Krystal & Kyle are BOTH lucky to have the socioeconomic lifestyles they have -- and their luck stems not only from the birthing-lottery, but also from the right-wing, lottery-style, socioeconomic political system of capitalism.
The lottery-style socioeconomic-political system, known as capitalism, is imposed by BOTH right-wing American political parties -- moderate right-wing Democrats and extremist right-wing Republicans are BOTH capitalist political parties.
The Democrat AND Republic political-parties are BOTH corrupt, right-wing parties, and, together, they work behind the scenes to form a right-wing uni-party -- that uni-party is bought, owned, bribed, and controlled by wealthy right-wingers conservatives.
And why would the wealthy-right-wingers use the Repub and Dem parties to work together behind the scenes? What is the thing that they're trying to conserve?
Answer: They are trying to conserve the right-wing socioeconomic system of neoliberal/neoconservative capitalism.
Because it is through the capitalist system by which the wealthy-right-wingers guarantee the inherency of their elevated socioeconomic status.
And it is the inherent nature of that same capitalist system under which the working-class people are guaranteed to endure varying degrees of suffering.
And, even though I'm not a fan of her, I still have to agree with BJG: I am not afraid of Trump. And nor am I afraid of Joe Biden.
I know that Trump is a right-wing extremist.
I know that Biden is a right-wing moderate.
And I know that the suffering of working-class people will continue to increase under both of them, and under any other candidate that the wealthy-right-wingers use their parties to put forward.
So, I say, bring on the increased suffering for more people. That seems to be the only thing that gets through to the lucky people like Krystal & Kyle: Suffering.
When enough people have finally suffered enough, in real, substantial, and meaningful ways, that is when real, substantial, and meaningful change will occur.
Until more of the lucky working-class(petit-bourgeois) people, like Krystal & Kyle, have suffered, we'll have to continue hearing people like Krystal & Kyle say, "our expectations have been exceeded."
And I'll have to continue to say, "I know people who have suffered enough -- so go f*kc your lucky selves with a wooden-splintered d!ldo."
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
I'd like to see the 'tale of the tape' on it before I make a bet. JC might have some weight on NM, but NM probably learned some hand-to-hand combat skills at The Citadel. NM looks scrawny, but if NM knows how to grapple better than JC, then NC will have the upper hand on JC, even if NM is lighter than JC.
Of course, this is all nonsense, and, in a civilized society, threatening violence would result in automatic removal from office and a special-election planned for that district.
Mace is as dumb as MarkWayne Mullin from Oklahoma, who tried to incite Sean O'Brien in a Senate Hearing. Mace & Mullin are both puppets, like a bunch of ConfedState Reps & Senators.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
A community should be able to initiate the division of a couple/relationship, particularly if/when a couple/relationship becomes toxic to the community, especially for the sake of children.
Under a system like that, my parents could have been divorced for numerous reasons on countless occasions. For examples:
1. After the first of the many times that my mother literally begged my father to hit her. She tried goading him into hitting her for years. He never did hit her though.
But I had to watch her purposefully manipulate him for years, and no kid should have to watch that kind of mind-f*kcing .
2. After the first of many times that my mother tricked me and my siblings into not reporting her to Child Protective Services for abusing us.
She would say things like, "they're just going to come and take you away."
She said it that way on purpose, to make us think it was our fault. Because, as kids, most of us get taught that when bad people do the wrong things, the cops come and take the wrong-doers away.
So, by telling us that "they" were going to "take us away," she tricked us into believing that we were the ones in the wrong.
Then, there was another thing she started doing.
When we would threaten to call CPS on her, she would say the 1-800-number out loud, like she had it memorized. Or, she would write the number on a piece of paper and hand it to us. It was as if she was daring us to call.
Looking back, I don't know if she did that because she believed that we wouldn't call or because she wouldn't have cared if we did call. (It's difficult, and probably futile, to try deciphering the specific and primary motives of consumer-driven socio/psychopathic narcissists.)
But she knew we were more scared of being taken away than we were of her abuse because she had already implanted the fear of "them" taking us away into our minds.
We didn't want to get taken away -- we just wanted the abuse to stop. And we were only scared because we didn't know any better.
Like, sure, for argument's sake, the foster-care system is a gamble. But we didn't know that as young kids in the 1980s.
And, besides, also for the sake of argument, which scenario is actually worse: Staying in an abusive situation or gambling on being moved to a less abusive situation?
Staying in an abusive situation isn't ideal, but neither is gambling. And no kid should have to make that choice.
Anyway. My mother played these manipulative mind-games on us until we stopped threatening to report her abuse. Instead of reporting her, we "learned" to live with the unreasonable and illogical abuse by succumbing to it.
I often wonder what could've been different for me if I would've rolled the dice and made the call to CPS.
Oh, goodness. That was quite a digression from my main point. I'll get back to it and conclude.
Perhaps my parents should have been forced to get a divorce after my mother was provably neglecting me and after she rendered my father into a perception of powerlessness to do anything about it.
You might be asking yourself, "what, why, how?" Well, then, here are your answers.
3. After I almost lost my tongue was two years old.
I was in the garage alone. (WHAT?) Then I climbed up on the four-foot-tall workbench. (WHY?) Then I fell off the bench and slammed my chin onto the concrete floor, nearly biting my tongue in half. (HOW?)
4. Or, the time I ate mothballs.
5. Or, the time I ate rat poisoning.
6 Or, the time I drank ammonia.
7. Or, the time I drank bleach.
8. Or, the time I ate a bottle of children's aspirin. (Which didn't even happen, because I clearly remember pouring the pills down the drain. But I got caught with the empty bottle by my neglectful biatch-mother, so I got treated as if I had eaten the whole bottle).
9. Or, when I was 7 years old, my doctor admonished my mother for allowing me to become obese, at which point my mother stopped using that doctor to prevent the doctor from recording a paper trail of my mother's nutritional-negligence.
10. Or, when my relatives and neighbors started molesting me.
Perhaps my parents should have been forced to get a divorce after one of those instances. Or maybe their divorce should have been required after...
11. ...my mother's first year of doctor-enabled opioid addiction. Maybe that would be a good precursor, indicating that someone would turn into a sh!te-mother and wife.
She's now 40+ years into a doctor-enabled opioid addict. Maybe that's a good clue, explaining why she's still a sh!te-human today.
If you're still asking yourself, "what, why, and how?" The answers are all easy and the same -- because my mother was too busy getting high on opioids to take care of herself and the vulnerable humans she was supposed to protect.
Certainly, there must be something on my list that would incite more than questions, like, what, why, and how"?
Surely, there must be something on my list that would move the better, caring members of the community to seek action, to end my parent's relationship and the misery it brought upon me and others.
There has to be something that will compel the working-class drones into action to protect children.
But, as of today: Nope!
Children are left to suffer without escape.
And these ignorant working-class adults keep pumping out innocent working-class children to continue the suffering. As if there's some magic number of suffering children that, if reached, will make the suffering of working-class adults disappear.
I don't say all these things to get sympathy for me. I don't need it now. But I do say these things to incite empathy for the children who are suffering RIGHT NOW.
I wouldn't change my childhood. My suffering gave me the sense of perception to grasp who is at fault for my suffering. The people at fault are those like J.D. Vance.
And my opening point remains the same:
There should be a system in place whereby the people of a community can initiate the division of a couple/relationship, particularly if/when a couple/relationship becomes toxic to the community, especially for the sake of children.
Until better times, I'll be preaching antinatalism and celibacy.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Your argument is great! Let me know if this one is any good, in regards to Emily saying the drugs could be harmful...
In 2017, right-wingers passed and signed "Right to Try" legislation into law. This allows people to try untested/risky/potentially dangerous treatments for medical purposes. To give people the "Right to Try" to improve the quality of their own lives.
But, now? Suddenly? Right-wingers DON'T want to give people the "Right to Try" to try to improve the quality of their own lives???
Suddenly, right-wingers want to go against and/or take back their own law???
No-no-no-no... Right-wingers just want to prevent "*OTHER*" people from having the "Right to Try" to try to improve the quality of their own lives.
Because right-wingers are cruel hypocrites.
The wealthy right-wingers are intelligent, cruel hypocrites.
The working-class right-wingers are ignorant, cruel hypocrites.
If you think it's a good argument, pass it on.
P.S. This is like the right-wing's book-ban laws that are getting the Bible banned.
Or, like the right-wing's parental-rights laws that are being used by the parents of marginalized children.
Again, not all right-wingers are intelligent. Even the ones who write laws can be dumb. But cruelty is one of their main goals.
And another goal is to incite the ignorant working-class right-wingers into sabotorial, violent, and/or murderous action.
That's what wealthy right-wing conservatives, who are trying to conserve their places in the hierarchies of social-status they've created, are going to do.
They don't even care if their hypocritical, right-wing laws stand. They'll just use their wealth to try again.
Or, they'll use their wealth to leave the country when they've finally instigated a civil or larger war involving the U.S.
That's what the wealthy Nazis/Confederates did when the Allies/Union came calling -- the wealthy used their wealth to flee. And wealthy, right-wing Americans have been doing the same, and increasingly so, as of late.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@williecatch9 Ha...
Ross said: Maybe we should be more nuanced.
Fact: Being more nuanced would require less laziness.
You, Willie, implied that being more nuanced would be more lazy.
Take Your Meds said they don't think you understand what nuance means.
I tried to explain to you, Willie, how nuance requires a person to be less lazy, because you wrongly claimed being nuanced would be more lazy.
Then you, Willie went on to reply to me, proving that you still don't understand what nuance means.
I'll try again.
Being more lazy would be if I said something un-nuanced, like, "ALL people named Willie are stupid."
Being less lazy would be comprehending and applying the nuances of people named Willie:
1. Not ALL people named Willie are stupid.
2. Only SOME people named Willie are stupid.
3. And SOME people named Willie are geniuses.
So far, no one will be claiming you're the third option.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2