Comments by "Charles Eye" (@TheCharleseye) on "Monsieur Z" channel.

@GoeTeeks If you think that only the people who vote are conservative or liberal, I've got a bridge to sell you. I know a whole lot of people with very strong political views who don't vote. The ridiculous "The system is rigged, so there's no point" nonsense has infected both sides of the aisle. There are a whole lot more conservatives and liberals than just who bothers to vote. They just don't really count, since they don't cast a ballot.
10
@ThatGuy-nc6wg Well, if I have to choose between seeing crime every day or virtually never witnessing it, I think I'll go ahead and choose the latter. Especially when the comparison would be something like "saw a kid steal a candy bar and run out of a store, once" vs "saw a store get robbed so often that their corporate headquarters shut down every one of their stores in the area."
7
@-gemberkoekje-5547 You don't see how decadence is worse now than in the 1970s? Really? You can literally pull a computer out of your pocket, have any food you want delivered to your front step, communicate with the driver, and pay for it...while sitting on your toilet. In fact, you can yell "Hey Alexa" and then you don't even have to expend the energy of holding and swiping your phone. If you have an Alexa-enabled bidet, you don't even have to clean your own butt when you're done. What's more, that applies to pretty much any working-class or higher individual in the US. That is just one example. Decadence is SOOO much worse now than it used to be.
5
@boosterh1113 Simple. Urban laws for urban areas, and rural laws for the rest. The Federal government should be reduced to its actual Constitutional authority. Federal laws should only pertain to Federal issues (which are all handily and specifically outlined within the US Constitution). State laws should only pertain to Statewide issues. Local laws should handle everything else. That combined with a big push for those in cities to mind their own business and stop trying to expand their laws into rural areas, is the only way to see any kind of balance between the two.
5
Yeah, gosh. What would it be like if my poor, rural area were...poor? That would really suck. Let's see...the county roads I drive on are funded by the county, which gets most of its money from property taxes that my neighbors and I pay. That probably explains why county roads suck but I promise, you didn't pay for them, even if they do get used to transport your food to your local grocery store (you're welcome). My water comes from a well that I paid to have dug and goes to a septic tank that I paid to have installed, so you can stop patting yourself on the back for any waterways you think you funded. The schools get "so much" money from the State that they're constantly raising funds for even the essentials. Thanks...I guess. Everything else is private companies and neighbors helping neighbors, so...I'm sorry, what were you saying again?
4
@-gemberkoekje-5547 So your point (now that you've moved the goalposts) is that society can continue to become more and more ridiculously decadent, because it hasn't killed us so far. Please don't ever apply that logic to smoking cigarettes. I promise, you'll be wrong about that, too.
4
@jasonsands5881 Aw, were the people in small towns mean to you? Cities are causing societal collapse and global climate change that could bring about an extinction-level event. But gosh...at least they're not mean to you there (except for all the people who are, of course).
3
@chrisbeer5685 I'm gonna need receipts for your claims about keeping adults from transitioning. Also for your claims about not being legally allowed to socially transition. Which States' laws are doing that (since you can't post links, you can at least specify).
3
@chrisbeer5685 Issue 1: Ask any Democrat about gun control and the second amendment. They will tell you that a form not being available as soon as a law passes and having to meet with an authority figure they deem necessary, are not infringements on your rights. California has pulled the same and worse, yet those laws are considered perfectly valid by the majority. That pertains to an enumerated constitutional right. The general consensus seems to be that a right delayed is not a right denied. Mind you, that's not my position, it's the position of the Democrats (and apparenlty now, the Republicans). Take it up with them if you have a problem with that reasoning but the courts seem to back it. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure you're telling me that before this law, a person didn't even need to see a doctor before starting to medically transition. That's pretty scary. I have to wait for the doctor if I need to be prescribed a painkiller. Why should it be easier to get on hormone blockers than to get prescription strength ibuprofen? Issue 2: So, they're not preventing children from socially transitioning, just advising against it. Okay, and? States don't ban people from having unprotected sex but they advise against it. People want to do something and the government says they shouldn't. Welcome to the club! If this is the first time you've ever run into an issue where the government advised against you doing something you wanted to do, you've either lived a very blessed or a very short life. This new idea that any pushback from government, whatsoever, is some kind of tyranny, is asinine. We live in a two party system. Absolutely everyone gets pushback from the government throughout their lives. It's never going to change, either. Bottom line: No States are preventing adults from transitioning and no States are preventing kids from socially transitioning. Your receipts prove that you are overblowing the situation to make it seem more dire than it is.
2
@thesun2412 That's because each generation - as it becomes relevant - is mostly still young, idealistic, and foolish. Every new, "relevant" generation has pushed us closer and closer to the brink. The entire world would be an objectively better place if a bunch of "Progressives" hadn't decided that we should do "better" than living like the Amish. For one thing - and most importantly - there would be far fewer humans.
2
@jddrafts Wrong. This is the information age. That means that every vote DOES matter now. You could have made that argument thirty years ago but not now. It doesn't just matter whether your candidate wins, any more. The voting gets broken down and scrutinized and broadcast across the entire Internet. Every, single vote is one that will help show what people actually want. That helps to get others to follow suit. If people believe they are alone on an issue, they'll usually give up. If they see that there are others out there that feel the way they do, there's more chance of them voting for change. Every vote matters. Maybe not the way you want them to but they do. It's one of the few good things that has come of the Internet age.
2
It's safer out, in the rural areas. Cities are - more and more - starting to show their tendency towards destruction and violence. The balance is becoming less so. Moving towards that is a fool's errand.
1
@jasonsands5881 Yes, cities are. The highest concentrations of everything wrong with the world occur in large cities. Violence and pollution being chief among them. The overreaching laws that stifle the everyday lives of regular people just minding their business, are reactions to the issues in big cities. Cities are absolutely ruining the world. Contrast that with the "terrible tragedies" of people not minding their business, and a lack of things to do for those who don't know how to entertain themselves and I'm gonna have to say that rural life wins. Especially when you consider that if most people actually cared about others minding their business, they wouldn't post everything on social media and hold their breath, waiting for the 👍and comments to roll in. By the way, the easy solution to that one is to not live in town. People have a real hard time minding my business when they aren't right across the street or next door.
1
@djt8518 Math teachers don't get paid to teach sex ed.
1
@GhalidiusTrident Teaching about sex in Sex Ed is one thing. Teaching about gender identity in English class is another. Even California requires parents to sign a permission slip for their children to take Sex Ed. This way, parents know it is happening and can be prepared for any questions and such. Teachers who decide they are actually missionaries for their cause and introduce such subjects in entirely different classes are no longer teachers. They're activists. As such, they should be dismissed. Kids aren't given enough time to learn these subjects as it is. Now they have to get derailed because some activist thinks it's more important for kids to learn about neo-pronouns than how to conjugate a verb. 1/4000 people have gender dysphoria. The average number of students per public school in the US is 407. The average number of schools in a district is 5.6. That's 2,279.2 students per district, meaning there is roughly one genuinely gender dysphoric student for every two school districts. That would make gender identity one of the least important things to be taught in schools. It is an order of magnitude more important to teach about something as menial as table manners, than gender identity. At least most kids will run into situations where table manners will be useful knowledge.
1
@boosterh1113 Urbanites got handed a big danger for a couple of years, in the form of COVID. The smart ones with the means to do so, fled the cities in record numbers. They went ahead and gentrified a lot of the rest of the Country, in just a couple of years. Maybe the urbanites should go back to pretending everything in the cities is fine, so that everyone else can possibly afford to buy property in their own home towns, again.
1
@thiccchungo1041 Yes, California's insanely rich, rich people are so harmed by the Liberal policies that built their burning cities full of homeless people. Absolutely. You're definitely not talking out the wrong side of your...self.
1
I moved far enough Left to realize that moving Left is at the root of the world's problems, today. If it wasn't for "progress," most people on earth would be living like the Amish. This means that our population would be a tiny fraction of what it is today. More importantly, we wouldn't have had an industrial revolution, that has led to climate change aka the next great extinction event. The entire planet would be better off if humans would stop being so "progressive."
1
They keep claiming that the "Mouse-topia" experiments were deeply flawed and were not good predictors of the direction of society. They keep saying it, while we keep seeing parallels between the mouse city and modern America. I feel like it's less "This is false" and more "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" Ya know?
1
@maximillianhallett3055 So, what are you proposing?
1
@skoolboi9901 True Conservatism would have saved the planet. If it weren't for "Progressives," people would all be living like the Amish right now. Instead, "Progressives" kept pushing for the world to be easier to live in. It's all of the modern decadence that has caused the untenable amounts of pollution. "Progress" is what led to ships crossing oceans, which led to more wars, more colonizing and the intercontinental slave trade. Conservatives of each generation largely want to be left alone, to work, raise a family, and mind their own business. Then the Progressives come around and stir things up. Whenever that happens, they throw the baby out with the bath water and make something unforeseen (by them) way worse, while trying to make something else better. You're guilty of this, yourself. You talk about trying to do things the "best way." The best way was for people to live in small groups, minding their own business, living whatever life they could make for themselves. "Progress" has been the opposite of that, throughout history. Arrogant morons who think they know better than the next guy how that guy should live. It's asinine.
1
Optinihilist The ones that were well known by our government, that allowed it to happen, rather than performing their duty and intervening when something illegal was happening? Yeah, those ones. The ATF is apparently only good for burning down buildings with children in them and hassling gun shops/owners that forget an apostrophe on a 4473.
1
@richardwalenga1688 That is one of my favorite and most consistently relevant quotes.
1