Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "ReasonTV" channel.

@nikolasirovica3250 If you want to keep the region historic, don't let in millions of immigrants. The reason that housing is needed is that the population is growing not because of new births but because of the highest immigration rates in the world. If you support immigration, you have to support new building to house them and provide the infrastructure for economic development. I'm not being anti immigration, either. I'm stating a point of fact. You can't have one without the other. The very people that are objecting against development in the area are the same people that scream discrimination and encourage the influx of more immigrants, both legal and illegal. Explain to me where these new immigrants are going to live if you don't build new homes for them.
16
@ft4903 Hundreds of millions of us grew up with the meaning of gender being what you call "traditional". If you want to describe a new phenomenon that isn't traditional, find a new term. Gender has a specific meaning and has for all our lives. We do lend gender to inanimate objects and ideas. It's called personifying or anthropomorphising. We do it all the time and it follows grammatical protocol. To deny that is illogical and is tending to being intentionally obtuse. In fact, entire languages revolve around gender being either masculine or feminine. Also, gender is NOT based on appearances or experiences. If the remains of a person is found 400 years in the future, the autopsy would show the gender being either male of female. That would be the genetic assignation. In the very rare instance it might show it to be intersex but that is a genetic anomaly, not a true description of human sexuality or reproduction. It wouldn't matter if that person had lived a transgender lifestyle or not. Their genetics would show gender in the "traditional" and scientific meaning of the word not the alteration of that meaning as a social construct.
14
@ft4903 For years, gender meant the distinction between male and female. That changed a few years ago. How do I know this? I consulted a Webster's dictionary which I purchased in 1979, the year I started college. This is what it said. "sex, male or female. (Gram) classification of nouns according to sex (actual or attributed) or animateness." It would appear that the actual sex is important when assigning a grammatical assignation. The personification of an object (calling your car Betsy) attributes a female sexuality to your car. That is not an actual fact. So, if I, a male, want to be known as female, I'm attributing a gender that is not in fact. If it was is would say (actual AND attributed) instead of (actual OR attributed). The change is the meaning of the word "gender" is, in, fact the social construct. The current and fairly recent understanding of the word did not exist 50 years ago.
12
@ft4903 You're equating scientific fact with perceived experiences when you're using the heliocentric example. The real scientific fact concerning gender is that a DNA analysis will show either male or female and will NEVER show the myriad of genders that is claimed to exist. It is the myriad of "genders" that is the social construct. Science isn't about opinions or experiences. It's about fact and it doesn't support your version of gender. What you're describing isn't scientific fact. It's an emotional reaction based on a life experience that is unquantifiable, therefore can't be described scientifically. DNA shows male or female. I can't help that. I can't wish it away or wish it true. It just is. This can't be changed unless you use the O'Brian method. Tie a cage of rats to the heretic's face and then force the heretic to declare that 2 plus 2 equals 5. Not scientific but effective in a socially constructive way.
12
@nikolasirovica3250 You've just mentioned cities that have housing problems in Europe. Guess why? Eventually you have to build more housing but you can't because of the laws prohibiting that building of homes. So you have problems. Then, countries like Germany and Sweden, allowed untold numbers of refugees in. Now you need MORE homes and still those laws are in place and the problems get worse and housing becomes even more expensive. Europe will have to come to a balance, just like California, where you understand that nothing lasts forever. You can't have unfettered immigration and keep everyone of those historical buildings. Fortunately, birth rates in Europe and America are so low that populations would go down if it wasn't for immigration but cutting back on immigration seems to something unthinkable to many progressives. So, what do you do? Right now, nothing seems to be the answer in those European cities and California.....and the problem gets worse. Don't get me wrong. I've been to Europe and those cities are beautiful but you have to consider one thing. Of what use are those cities if they're not built for people? It's why they exist in the first place. Now, it seems they exist to please the aesthetic values of those who can afford it and the rest can get lost and find another place to live.
10
@glennwatson3313 I was that age during the Vietnam protests. I will validate what you're saying. Some of them were all about love and peace and then would go to the airport to greet American soldiers coming home from a tour of Vietnam and they'd screech at them and even spit in their faces. College age students have always been out to lunch. Not all but enough to make it school uncomfortable.
10
@nikolasirovica3250 Except they're not building any housing.....not cheap housing anyway. Also, California has declared itself a sanctuary state so it's not the legal immigrants that are going there but illegals, especially the criminal types. There are countless cases of illegals breaking the law and being released because they refuse to call ICE to have them deported. Also, it isn't the working class that are leaving. It's the middle class and business owners, the ones who pay the bulk of the taxes. They're closing shop and leaving the state in droves. The super rich don't care so that's what you have left. Super rich living in their elitist neighbourhoods and the poor, barely getting by and living in subsidised housing or on the streets. New housing isn't being built because of regulations that force builders to pay exorbitant fees and meet untenable building codes. Why do you think housing and rents are so high? Why is the homeless problem so prevalent? It's due to the stranglehold the municipal and state governments have on every type of business across California. Government interference in the economy is destroying the state but socialism is wonderful.
9
@williamwilson6499 The governments will keep writing laws until everyone is in violation of some kind......even YOU. This isn't your garden variety criminal. He broke a city ordinance and he paid the fine and destroyed what he shouldn't have built without a permit. Funny how he has to pay for his own prosecution but if I rob the local 7/11, I won't have to. The prisons are full of criminals who've never been billed for their own prosecutions but a guy, a hard working American, makes an error in judgement and they go after him in spades. Only in the bureaucratic maze of government and corrupt lawyers would it cost over 20 thousands dollars to send a notice of violation. You're a slave to the bureaucracy if you actually believe this to be ethical or legal.
9
@auraglasswerks4900 You have no idea how economics work. They've spent decades forcing laws restricting the building of new homes. That means that the homes that exist becomes more and more valued as populations rise. More people trying to get into fewer available homes. That will result in a situation in which those with the most money will be able to offer more money to get those diminishing homes until the rents become so high that they're completely out of line with costs in the rest of the country. It's the demand that is driving the housing costs up not the cost of building a house. Are building supplies that much more expensive in San Francisco than Des Moines? If that's true, buy building supplies in Des Moines and take them to San Fran. but that's not the problem at all. It's the snobbery of those with money who don't want to see change and who like to feel good about charities and initiatives that band-aid solutions but don't solve the problem. They don't want to see the neighbourhoods change, yet their lack of foresight is doing just that and it's not pretty. This isn't a problem that will be readily fixed. Housing costs will only come down when the available homes closely align with the number of those seeking them. That is a conundrum that isn't easily fixed.
7
I just came from a news....I don't know what to call it, really.....from MSM, where Candace Owens, Michael Dyson and a moderator, spent eleven minutes yelling over each other's voices and interrupting one another. I lasted about 3 minutes. It was insane and pointless to watch. That's why people like Dave Rubin. He brings the people on and you get to hear them talk. There's no shock, no "gotcha" moments or debunking going on. He lets the guest talk so you know exactly what they're about. You can listen and understand what it is they're trying to say. You don't have to agree with them but once you understand what it is they're saying, you can make an informed and coherent case for how you think. It's learning. True knowledge isn't just about things you agree with. It's about all ideas, good and bad. Dave Rubin gets it. The Young Turks don't. They want to make a contest of it. Competition is great, in some cases, but when knowledge becomes dogma, the indoctrinated are highly tempted to cheat. That can't end well.
7
It's not about diversity. It's about power and control. That's what they want to achieve. It's impossible to write a book without somehow offending the outrage mob and that's what they want. You're guilty, as far as they're concerned. It's not IF they find what you're guilty of. It's when.
5
@LoraxChannel It would appear that we've just found our bureaucrat. What you're seeing is enough laws that everyone and anyone is breaking the law. That's what these bureaucrats are depending on. Laws are made to stop people from abusing the rights of others. What have these people done that others would find abusive? Go green, the Democrat government of California says but when that preacher does just that, they go after him because it's not how they envisioned. It's a self reliant green and that's not what they meant. Plug in so we can know what you're doing. It's about control, not about the law or about human rights. If this was such a moral act, why was the county commissioner so evasive when questioned. This is an abuse of the rights of those citizens and they're hiding behind the law to take away their rights. Today it's them. Someday it might be YOU.
5
Mr. Indelible Incredibly, the best tippers do not come from those who make the best money. It's the regular Joes, like other serving staff, cab drivers, factory workers and construction workers who tip the best. We used to say "The size of the tip is inversely proportional to the increased value of their clothes". In other words , the better they dressed, the worse the tip. And no....it's not a terrible system, except for those who are always watching every dime in their pocket. I worked for 15 years as a server and I would never have been able to get by except for this "terrible system". It's quite apparent that you've never worked in this type of industry and you're one of those you love to abuse their server, and do they ever exist and they NEVER tip. Self entitled jerks who complain about everything from "My potatoes are too hot" to "My corn is touching my mashed potatoes" and "Why do I have so much food?". The world revolves around them and complain so they can feel justified about not leaving a tip. Self righteous do gooders like Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin. Is that who you mean. "God...protect us from those with good intentions". That's what I say. If you tip me just to feel good about yourself, keep it. I don't need your alms that bad. Tip because I've done a good job, otherwise keep it.
4
@ramiere1412 Then all Snopes has to say is that this is a site dedicated to satire. It's supposed to be comedic. It's how humour has worked forever. If I say that "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse", that shouldn't be up for a fact check. It's a simple joke but one doesn't infer dishonesty when the joke becomes a little more sophisticated. If people start using it as a reference to facts, all one has to do is to point out that this is comedic. I'm going to say that these fact checks are put in place to prevent people from accessing satire sites because they don't like the implication of the humour being used. "Don't make fun of my beliefs". They do the same to people who call themselves comedians. Comedians don't like doing universities anymore because those, who become offended at jokes, have become violent at times. "Speech is violence" is the mantra. They're attacking humour because humour and satire has always been a way to pick away at sacred beliefs. The religious call it blasphemy. The political left calls it "misinformation", their word for blasphemy.
3
@gardensofthegods If you're afraid of being misquoted, get it on video. Then the misquotes become your weapon against them. You're just offered the easy way out for anyone who has a untenable position. Pretend you're the victim before any wrongdoing even happens. It's a poor excuse to speak up.
3
Donald Smith Do you think that they're giving the homeless hammers and lumber to build these homes with? Are workers going to work for free? There is a huge bureaucracy in California, with all kinds of fees and permits, bureaucratic duplication and lawyers and consultants and land to be purchased, with real estate appraisal involvement, and agents and surveyors and more fees.....and you haven't even hammered in a nail yet. All of these people want to get paid and some of them are clever enough to scam extra cash into their bank accounts in all the confusion of the bureaucratic maze. You're one naive individual if you can't see that.
2
Monstrous defence spending and do you know what? You're no safer. Being prepared militarily is and ready to mobilise in an emergency is different than spending your money to buy every killing trinket made available by a conglomerates, whose only purpose is to sell trinkets at a profit. Those conglomerates are necessary and even important but that doesn't mean you have to buy every little gizmo they want to sell. It's important that I eat, too but I'm not going to buy every food item that's available at the supermarket to stave off the threat of starvation. What good is something if it's destined to rot or rust away and never be used for anything except for display purposes and the feeling of security that being a pack rat provides.
2
@johnsparks007 I think that you've just found the sensitivity reader in this comment section.
2
@TheProphetify That was cheerful. Are you the guy I saw the other day, down town, wearing the "The End is Nigh" sign?
2
I'm guilty. I'm a microaggressor. I didn't know I was. Didn't know till just now. I asked an Oriental woman where she was born. She wasn't upset...I don't think. Actually, we had quite a long conversation about her childhood and the region of China where she grew up, interlaced with my telling her that my family came from the Netherlands. I realize now that her openness was feigned and that what was really there was a simmering hatred of my rudeness and audacity. I should apologize. Help me. Would an apology be taken as another form of mircoaggression and offend her? I don't want to be a two time offender.
1
One thing I learned from watching this video about free speech, is that I have the option to stop listening to these self righteous whiners by stopping this video and watching something else.
1
@Mercurie3 But these problems that they're speaking of is happening in Democrat cities. LA, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Sacramento.....all Democrat. You're not solving a thing in their homeless problem by pointing out Republican corruption somewhere else. Deal with the problem at hand and it's the hopeless bureaucracy of Democratic ideology. Their need to be in control of ALL aspects of building and economics. That's the problem with homelessness in California and all along the west coast. NY is facing the same crisis and, guess what, it's a Democrat stronghold as well.
1
Tgon Mwort Good point. All talk, no action.
1
@ramiere1412 I'm not implying that they're "attacking satire". I'm saying that they're attacking the ideas that might lie behind the satire. They're doing it by labelling the satire as false information, instead of saying that this is satire or humour and should be viewed as such. Eliminate the satire that would poke fun at ideas, you're eliminating the possibility that the reader or consumer might be swayed by that satire. It's a very subtle attempt at influencing how a person might interpret the satire. If they laugh at it, maybe they'll laugh at the ideas that the satire is directed at. If you're worried that someone will believe the satire as fact, just point out that this is meant to be comedic. Don't smear it as a lie or disinformation. THAT'S my issue. Fact checking a joke is ridiculous. Only an ideologue would do that, like a religious or political fundamentalist. It would derail every conversation that I've ever had with friends over a few beers. The only reason they feel the need to fact check is due to the implications of the satire presented challenges their own belief system. It really has nothing to do with people believing the joke itself. It has everything to do with how people might perceive that facts behind the satire.
1
Jeremy Mettler Huh????
1
@jimlovesgina If that were so, why weren't those wells sitting patiently, waiting for the oil prices to go back up, so they could go right back into production? They incentive was there. Could it be because of all the restrictions placed on oil production by Biden? Add to that the cancelling of the Keystone pipeline and oil productions stagnated, allowing the prices to reach near record heights.
1
Leave it to the celebrities. They'd screw up the Lord's prayer in their attempts at virtue signalling. I worked for years in the service industry. It was the tips that paid our wages. On busy nights I'd make 30 to 40 bucks an hour, sometimes more, just on tips. And this nonsense about how tipping hurts women. Ridiculous. You can tell Jane Fonda never waited on tables. Women always make more....ALWAYS, and I don't care. I was quite happy with what I was making. "God save us from those with good intentions" Maybe those "loving" celebrities should talk to the people that they say they want to help first. They're going to help me and my associates out of jobs......and thanks, you champagne do gooders.
1
@amberpoole-kieniewicz735 Now, it's all about race and gender. Actually, it's boomers who give the most to charity. Since you insist that whites have all the money and minorities are poor, it would seem that it's those rich white boomers are the ones doing the most to help. Also, I lost everything to a divorce and my reaction to the death of my son which happened within months of each other. I started drinking heavily and got to the point where I couldn't hold down a job. After about 10 years of this, I straightened myself out but by then I had put myself in a position where a good paying job was out of reach. I worked at jobs that didn't pay much more than minimum wage. So, I adjusted my approach to money and saving it. I stayed away from owning a car. WAY to expensive to buy, insure, keep fuelled and maintain. I started to do the small things to save. I didn't spend my spare change. It was rolled up and put into a savings account. I got a deal so that every time I used my debit card, the card would round my payment to the nearest 5 dollar amount and the difference between the price and the payment went into a savings account. Every time I walked to do my shopping, I put 10 bucks into a savings account. If the clerk would tell me that I saved 3 bucks on my shopping bill, that 3 bucks went into a savings account. At the end of every month, I would pay my rent, go shopping and the rest would go into a savings account, usually somewhere between 100 and 200 bucks. When I got to $10,000 bucks, I invested 7000 of it into investment plans recommended by my banker. I nickled and dimed my way into a 6 figure savings account. Does that make me morally superior? Hardly, but it sure meant that I was determined to do better for myself and my daughter. Oh yeah, through all that time, I would put about 10 bucks worth of groceries into the food bank bin at our local grocery store. Not the same thing as taking in children, which is an extremely laudable thing to do but this moderately rich white old man did try to help.
1
It was said that the left protests of the late sixties prompted people to vote in the right wing Nixon. I wonder how much the Antifa, BLM and all the other crazy far left wing rhetoric prompted people to vote for Trump. I believed during the election that the alignment of the Democratic party with these causes alienated a lot of people with centrist views and was one of the factors that helped to give Trump the presidency.
1