Comments by "cosmosofinfinity" (@cosmosofinfinity) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder"
channel.
-
1500
-
506
-
458
-
432
-
195
-
191
-
185
-
167
-
158
-
158
-
152
-
139
-
134
-
132
-
128
-
122
-
110
-
105
-
95
-
85
-
84
-
83
-
76
-
73
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
66
-
66
-
64
-
63
-
62
-
61
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
49
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
40
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
I feel like this logic is sort of like saying "we are getting nuked, but it would be wrong if we fired nukes back"
The whole point of nuclear deterrence, or deterrence of any sort, is that everything is fair game if it's in retaliation. That if one makes the decision to make an attempt to kill, they should prepare to BE killed. One sword keeps another in its sheath. One having a gun means the other keeps theirs in their holster. In that sense, just Ukraine merely having these may do a lot of good, even if they don't use them; it will give Russia second thoughts of if another attack is worth it. Deterrence aside, self-defense is justified. It is the same act of violence, yet it is virtuous because it is a strike against the attacker in order to get them to STOP attacking, which they initiated. It is violence to end violence.
That's what Ukraine's war is. They stop once Russia stops. Russia, just like anyone else on the individual scale, gets no sympathy for receiving what they dish out. Sympathy is only for the families that get lost in the process because their leader got them involved as sacrificial lambs and pawns in their chess games. But Russia is the one sending them there, and the blame is squarely on them if they get slaughtered. And Ukraine has been more than a class act thus far, returning Russian corpses to the grieving Russian families that Russian forces don't even care to retrieve.
Does this set a bad precedent, like you say? Absolutely. But Russia's the one who set the precedent. Cluster bombs were already being used, just on one side. Now it has been equalized. Ukraine and Russia are both killers now, it's just a matter of who kills for the nobler reason, and if Ukraine will use these cluster bombs as atrociously as Russia does, which has yet to be seen. And it's not like America has any moral authority left to lose anyway after Vietnam and Iraq, other than "at least we aren't Russia".
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@Objectivist Zealot I just gave you mine, but okay. I get the feeling when you say race essentialism you mean race reductionism or identity politics, which it's not, CRT is just stating that race does exist (as a social construct) and how that applies with the already existing critical theory, creating a sort of storytelling pattern of an entire demographic of people's story/history over the course of this country's history instead of being color blind with the analysis of power structures in America over time, as opposed to dancing around the racial identity component and not bringing it up into the discussion at all. Power structures exist as a social construct, race exists as a social construct, and obviously those two social constructs mingle with each other, 2+2=4.
Meanwhile, Great Replacement Theory is a paranoid conspiracy theory treating entire cultures of millions of individual people all having some unified singular agenda/goal to outgrow white people as a population, which is just something that happens naturally by all those independent individuals acting within their own practical self-interest and without express intent of any mastermind or shepherds. Immigration simply happens, it's a worldwide phenomenon that an increasingly global society has a lot more cultural mixing across the board, even isolationist Japan has "open borders", all modern countries do, and Japan nor Europe have any problem of those peoples being displaced from their own land, they just simply occupy less of a percentage of it since immigrants being ADDITIVE to a population means the pie charts and percentages divvy up a different way, without the existing people already there losing anything other than having to see different kinds of people sometimes of foreign cultural origin, which is of course the scariest thing of all time and the different countries of the world in days past absolutely NEVER interacted with each other before until lately /s
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
It's one of those things that should be value-neutral, and it just is what it is. It's like if strawberry became the #1 flavor of ice cream, superseding chocolate and vanilla. Like, who gives a shit? It has no bearing on anything. The flavor preference breakdowns are not something that should be forced to a be a certain way.
Matt Walsh wants artificial social engineering to MAKE America a certain way, instead of just letting it be what it authentically is. Helicopter parenting even when the child is well into adulthood, never wanting to relinquish control out of fear of his child becoming its own person and deciding its own destiny, which may contradict Matt's pre-chosen path for it, which is of course not just personal preference but heretical and a matter of ultimate life or death to someone who in all seriousness believes in the delusions of heaven and hell. God gave humans free will, but if you deviate from the path God wants in ANY WAY, eternity of misery and condemnation for you, buddy (and I love you, by the way)
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@aliamjon2550 If Republicans' ideas were actually popular and Mississippi was the economic powerhouse of the country, I get the feeling Republicans would suddenly drop any concern for the electoral college. But they rely on it exclusively, because they have given up on trying to win on the strength of their ideas and convincing people. In fact, their ideology is intrinsically exclusionary, so they are fighting a losing battle, which makes it no wonder they put all their eggs in the fascism minoritarian basket now.
If California and New York are the only places in the country that have such a big population that they swing the entire election alone, you would think they would try to sway them to their side, but no, they go after all the splintered states full of isolated uneducated bumpkins who have no idea what the rest of the world is like. Divide and conquer. Why is it better to you for Wyoming with its 0.17% of the population to swing the election over California with its 11.80%?
What sort of democracy is it where 1 person counts for more than 100 people? If California swung elections at the expense of Wyoming, it at least has the amount of people to justify it, that is, more people having their say respected. That's called meritocracy, baby. That's called democracy, baby. If Wyoming wanted more say, it should represent more people, by BEING more people. 0.17% of the vote should count for 0.17% of the vote, and 11.80% of the vote should count for 11.80% of the vote. Is that so scandalous? Or should 2 out of 10 people overrule the will of the other 8, because that you happen to be one of the 2? A country that serves 2 people over the 8, what a wonderful place for 2 people (and what a shit place for 8)
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Why do you think they call it a BROADsword?
Seriously though, the "well there's monsters and magic, yet you have a problem with the women wielding swords?" point is a pretty bad and tiredly old fallacious one because monsters and magic existing does not change the biological strength difference of men and women or how much a sword weighs. Harry Potter has magic. In that case, would you buy Hermione lifting up a bus with her bare arms, no magic? Just because one rule of reality is altered, doesn't mean all of them are. If a woman or anyone else does such a feat, it has to be explained within the rules of that fictional universe. So you guys at The Majority Report are right to make fun of him, but are doing it for the wrong fallacious reasons, and are seemingly about as out of touch as he is.
My problem with what that guy says is that so much of fantasy fiction has women wielding sword (and many other melee weapons, and even with this typically masculine personality type on top of that), and he is singling out The Witcher for it? Plus it's the FANTASY genre, which means it is what we wish possible, not what is actually possible, which is why you see mages and healers and women fighters even though that wasn't historically part of medieval warfare. In reality, men wouldn't be so good at dealing with monsters either. They're monsters. They're superhuman.
Him singling out The Witcher for this complaint just shows that he probably doesn't engage with the genre much and is yet another ignorant Netflix casual, and casting aspersions on shit he doesn't know anything about. He didn't even mention the games, which I'm sure he's not aware of because he is an old out of touch fucktard who knows nothing of the current media landscape. But what do you expect, it's the Daily Wire; they are out of touch with reality as a whole.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"I know we're destroying the planet, but you don't have to be RUDE about it!"
Sam defending these kids is why he is the best left daddy on YouTube. Getting distracted with civility politics and optics misses the greater point, the greater crime, in favor of getting mad at a couple of renegade kids. Shooting the messenger, and totally missing the message.
The right did the same thing with Black Lives Matter, fixating on a bunch of petty small stuff instead of the systemic atrocity in question, despite knowing full well the black struggle that's been going on for so long, as recently as MLK in many of them's very lifetimes (who they hated back then, but pretend to love now). They never learn. Always bogged down in the trivialities to think about the real problems, let alone come up with a viable solution to them. And then they do the same sort of rioting except even more flagrantly terroristic and large scale, in favor of narcissistic fascism no less, and expect anyone to sympathize with them?
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It's really more like restoring the filibuster than getting rid of it. The current way we do it is devoid of actual filibustering, only SAYING you'll filibuster if it comes to it, without it ever actually coming to it. Well, now you actually have to do the filibuster, not just chickenshit say you're gonna do it without having to actually do a god damn thing. The filibuster is a cheat, but what we have now is like, if you're too lazy to even enter the cheat code in. It's, like, instead of the Konami code giving you 30 lives in Contra, it just played the credits screen immediately, or giving you 30 lives every time you press the B button. Fuck that. That's cheating the god damn CHEAT.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
All of a sudden the great white European culture has it wrong! I went to vacation in the Dominican Republic as a kid a few times, and occasionally saw topless women and girls. I found it odd, but then I got over it. I guess as a kid, I was more mature than Ben Shapiro is as an adult.
Men's breasts NOT having mammary glands is definitely a secondary sexual characteristic, by the way, Ben, just the same as women having them. But I don't expect scientific/biological awareness from a political propagandist. Sad that such a supposed intellectual heavyweight has fallen for the ignorant notion that men's chests are the default and non-sexual while women's are sexual. Why do men have nipples? Because they were originally going down the path of becoming mammary glands, but stopped early. It's because we have undeveloped breasts. We start off as female in the womb, then detour into male. Men even lactate sometimes. It is in fact women's chests that are the default, and men's chests the weird ones, if any.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
They can't just disagree on a minor regulation issue, they have to make it a hyperbolic absolute life-or-death matter. A government banning a certain kind of house appliance is fascism to them. Meanwhile, the actual fascism Donald Trump espouses is not only not a concern, but totally epic and based. Banning a certain kind of stove is totalitarian and anti-freedom, but banning Muslims, banning TikTok, banning free and fair elections, banning abortion, banning gay marriage, banning books, banning voting to adults under age 25, that's all just fair and reasonable
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
4:16 Jimmy going "hahaaa" as if that's Biden's L, when it's really JIMMY'S L since he said that would never ever happen and was epicly wrong (and the judge situation was decided under Trump, not Biden, so it was already a pretty much done deal prior to his election). Jimmy bet everything on Trump not screwing up the Supreme Court, and he lost it all (except his grift mansion). Absolutely stunning how anyone can call the drone strike KING anti-war
We still have no idea (and probably never will) the entire scale of civilian casualties under Trump since he conveniently scrubbed the record keeping on that. He was an absolute monster with no regard for human life and acting like he was an agent of peace is absurd beyond words, knowing every classless morally bankrupt thing Trump has said and done, we know he is not some nice guy, far from it, he's the most out-and-out deranged out of control psychopath mad with power we've ever had in that seat of power and he didn't even make any attempt to hide it, it was aggressively blatant and Jimmy still has the audacity to say this shit with a straight face? As straight as that creepy crooked smile can get, anyway
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Jimmy's working backwards from his conclusions. This is essentially the same logic as "Hitler liked dogs, so liking dogs is Nazi shit". Biden definitionally has to be a CIA puppet, so when he does something that is out of step with CIA patterns, Jimmy doesn't change his theory, but digs himself even deeper to make that somehow still fit his idiotic mold. Only just now that Brazil is getting sick of Elon Twitter's shit does this finally give Jimmy some kind of excuse to tie into Biden CIA deep state nonsense? Biden was elected in 2020, Elon didn't even buy Twitter until 2022, and Lula was elected in 2023. Also, this wasn't even Lula's decision, but a judge's. And all Elon had to do to avoid this was appoint a legal representative, which he refused to do. If this was part of some Lula-Biden/CIA deal, he would have just banned it outright, and not taken till just now to do it. Make it make sense, Jimmy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Matt Walsh, you have yet to explain why the color of the American population matters. Isn't it the content of character that matters? What if they are 90% brown but the overall culture produces a heavily reduced crime rate? Would there still be an objection somehow? Because the crime rate only keeps going overall lower and lower, and the races keep on mixing as is their legal right to do in a globalized culture with free travel, so what even is the problem? If you were born another color besides white, would you feel somehow worse or inferior about yourself? Why do you HAVE to be white? Why does anyone have to be any particular color that they happen to have been born as? These are irrelevant trivial circumstances of birth that inform nothing on what kind of person you are.
And remember, this is not natively white land. The naturalborn citizens of this land, pre-colonial America, were brown. So you don't exactly have a birthright to this place. "White people invaded and stole this place fair and square!" How about YOU fuck off back where YOUR kind came from, if you want to be surrounded by identical people? Except you're not gonna find theocratic fascist empires in Europe anymore either, so there really is no home for you, Matt Walsh, without you having to take it from someone else. America is and has always been a melting pot, so either melt or fuck off already, this ain't the place for you if you're trying to dominate all the other flavors here
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you look at how Douyin's algorithms work versus TikTok's, it is very clear to see that TikTok is designed from top to bottom to be a psy op against the western world. It is an express intent to elevate citizens domestically and sow infighting and negativity everywhere else. The data of citizens worldwide going directly to the CCP is another issue, since TikTok's staff and Douyin's staff and infrastructure communicate and share with each other.
So the data collection by itself isn't by itself the issue, the Chinese private sector not actually being private, is the issue. And the CCP is an organization much more nefarious and hostile than Mark Fuckerburg or Bill Gates or anyone else in American big tech, so YES, it IS justified to be more discriminating against TikTok, they are a unique case of worldwide platform being directly entangled with a fascist authoritarian government. To say going after TikTok is racist or xenophobic is scapegoating the real issue, and pushing that narrative is playing defense for a country that's essentially a dictatorship that hates your very existence, so don't fall for it, Majority Report
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And he defends the genocide of Native Americans. Just part of the greater good if it happens to you, Walsh! I heard America will get cool new gadgets at the end of that bloody crusade, so therefore the deaths and diminishment of you and yours are justified, the brown Matt Walshes of that future are gonna say so
Matt Walsh talks about preserving all the different types of hummingbirds, but I wonder just how concerned is Matt Walsh with conserving Native Americans and their culture, which is much more under threat of extinction than the white race ever will be. Nah, just like every other conservative he's out for himself and only himself, and fuck everybody else, they deserve whatever they got. Even when they didn't, they do. They had to have, because America in the past could ONLY have been good and never done anything bad (even though he hates just about everything about it right now because of perceived bads). According to him and his peers, we have iPhones, so the genocides were justified
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Nobody should be expected to have their debts paid for them"
They didn't. This was an exceptional case of an epidemic that plagues this country's working class since prices have skyrocked for college with decreasing job guarantees even for what used to be prestigious degrees while inflation rises and minimum wage doesn't. ALSO, no one, no taxpayer, is paying for that $10,000, that is merely an imaginary $10,000 that those people no longer HAVE to pay. It is not them being given money, it is them not having money siphoned from them for what is effectively a second mortgage.
"It builds character"
Getting hit in the balls builds character. Bullying builds character. Being domestically abused builds character. Being lied to builds character. Having to take a second job or suck dick to pay the bills in order to live that month builds character. Nevertheless, nobody wants to go through any of those things. People like Sean Hannity want pointless unnecessary suffering despite society's ability to easily get rid of it because his ideology is that people SHOULD suffer, cruelly and needlessly, and in ways that the elite don't have to go through because why would they want to.
In a country completely governed by money, Biden has made people $10,000 freer. That is $10,000 more than Trump ever gave us. It is indisputably a good thing to have more money and to have to pay less money, because that means more freedom (which is what so-called capitalists like Sean Hannity believe in). Sean Hannity and his peers hate freedom. They hate this country improving the lives of working people because they hate working people, and they hate their own viewers, which is why they love to deceive them and scam money out of them. They are predators of the gullible, and any business that thrives off deceit should not be in business.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I command thee, BE NORMAL! CONFORM! Yet they call us NPCs... They're the ones who want everything and everyone to fit into their hive mind of norms/traditions/dogmas instead of challenge themselves to think in different ways or at least be tolerant of those who do. You know, just refraining from barking like a dog at them or throwing stones at them. We're supposed to tolerate the bigotry of these conservative morons even if we disagree with them because they have deeply held spiritual beliefs, but they can't tolerate others they disagree with on the same sort of basis? Just one-sided self-serving rhetoric when they lash out about getting socially looked down upon for their antisocial asshole psychopathy like they are the victims of the sort of bullying they gleefully perpetuate
We share a country together, but one side is trying to cast others out and think they are more productive with less and less people (the most important asset of a country), and the other isn't, and is open to widening scope and working together across differences. Even if they got the precious all-white male-centric ethnostate they wanted, they would still be disagreeing with their fellow white males. The ideology intrinsically needs outgroups to fearmonger and cast out and brutalize over arbitrary differences, and it will inevitably turn inward with stricter and more unpassable purity tests to satisfy their pathological need to shed chaff.
As an example, 1800s Japan was an ethnostate, and even they turned against each other when they weighed the decision of whether or not to mingle with the western world. Just the very existence of a world outside of theirs is a threat to them, some sort of Satanic temptation, and there are no walls big enough to keep those ideas out, so you might as well make the best of them. They want to stay like isolationist Japan forever, and languish in the past and all its weaknesses, and lose out to the rest of the world that dares to explore new ideas either via them waltzing in and taking over by force or them simply economically/technologically out-competing us into obscurity/irrelevance
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Israel is the only country who gives people an hour notice before bombing them!"
Israel is also the only country bombing their own civilians this often, thus necessitating such a policy! And an hour isn't nearly enough time! Why don't they send some of their highly trained troops into the building instead of bombing the whole thing, killing more civilians than Hamas ever did? Israel is real evil, period. You wanna measure evil, it's pretty easy to do that just by counting the civilian murders on each side. Saying Israel has a right to self-defense is like saying I have the right to murder a guy (and his whole family) because he pinched my elbow. Ouch, that kinda hurt! I'm gonna devastate the entire neighborhood for that! Why don't you just nuke your own soil while you're at it, Israel? You're supposed to use a scalpel for such a delicate situation so as to prevent civilian deaths, but of course Israel has no regard for the innocent for their political feuds. Where one is meant to use a scalpel, Israel doesn't just use a hatchet, they use sticks of dynamite. Fuck anybody who is resorting to such mental gymnastics to defend this flagrant wanton devastation instead of simply calling this what it is: evil, injustice, and irresponsible amoral tyrannical use of authoritarian fascist power. How tragically ironic that Israel is becoming a new Nazi Germany. I wouldn't be surprised if their stupid pride and stubbornness and unwillingness for diplomacy gets the entire world sucked into a new world war. All because of stupid made up religions and bigotry.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You actually DON'T have to talk about children's shows, Ben. It's not "we as a society" having that conversation, you are. If the kids can handle it, why can't you? Also, do the writers of Blue's Clues not have the right to write scripts about whatever strikes their creative fancy? Especially when the message is about having empathy towards people who are different from you, how is this a bad thing? Gay people are gonna exist anyway, whether you talk about them or not. And that just kills you inside, doesn't it? You can't stop the gays. The gays can do whatever they want, including come into your most favorite TV shows. That's their right, as Americans. You have no basis to deny them this right, Ben. 1st amendment, beeyotch.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
21:40 Because only government does cost-cutting measures and layoffs... You're more likely to lose your job as a graphic designer in a for-profit company than a not-for-profit government job which will keep you on the payroll indefinitely because you are needed, regardless of that year's stockholder penny-pinching demands. Do cops ever lose their funding or their jobs when the cities are safe? No, they get expanded at every opportunity regardless of they are needed/performing well, or not!
And Barnes & Noble is, in fact, not gone. I go to one all the time, and there's always plenty of people in it. It is, in fact, Amazon, a corporation/fellow non-government entity, which is most responsible for Barnes & Noble's declining business. Tim is too dim to realize bringing free libraries up in a Barnes & Noble conversation makes no sense because libraries have been around for ages, and yet still there was room in the market for Barnes & Noble and Amazon both. The existence of libraries did not stifle their viability as businesses, they are addendums and additional options. To not have libraries and have ONLY Barnes & Noble and Amazon seems to be what Tim's logic wants, and yet that would objectively suck and make life worse for a lot of people. So why is the world a better place for NOT having government-option groceries?
And lets not forget Barnes & Noble ITSELF drove away small book businesses. Now Tim cries for the loss of Barnes & Noble, when it's just bigger fish always showing up to eat the former-bigger fish, and Tim would prefer for that to continue that unabated until there are no fish left except for the biggest, apparently. Unfettered capitalism and corporatocracy seems increasingly similar to Mad Max gang wars anarchism. Maybe conservatism IS the new punk rock, because they want to advance the economic apocalypse and let Jeff Bezos reign as undisputed gang lord of the wasteland with no centralized authority left capable of stopping him
Since Tim seems fine with libraries, maybe the solution to this that would make him happy is for libraries to offer the "community service" of selling groceries, just like his beloved Barnes & Noble does with its pastries and coffee
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The world that we live in currently is the end result of anarchy. And anarchy saw fit to create government. Pre-government, there was anarchy. Then there was government, and reforms of government, but never has anyone seen any benefit from getting rid of government after it had been made, since reverting to anarchy would not give additional benefit, only take away that which the government brought, which despite its flaws has made life easier and simpler in general by having an organization made by the people to have tasks allocated to them which lifts the burdens from all ordinary people. Power naturally consolidates, it's just a matter of if that power serves all people or just some favored people. Going back to anarchy is to go back to undoing all the consensus that has been built up and revert it back to infinite "that's just your opinion, man" from all sides down to the every-single-individual level and make life infinitely more complicated all over again, with everybody out on their own and no one incentivized to help each other since that would put themselves personally at risk as an individual.
The government helps all people without putting particular individuals at risk, that is the government's own self-interest in preserving order and fulfilling the wishes of the people (people in government ALSO being of the people). Our government doesn't conscript/force people to take IRA jobs or join the military to replenish its forces, it relies on individuals choosing for themselves to take that job as representative, as a fraction of individuals representing the whole. You can have individuals organized, but that's what the government in a democracy already is, organized individuals toward a common purpose. It's then just a matter of how efficiently it's organized and represents/carries out the will of the people. You just keep tweaking the machine. Breaking the machine will just reverse us back to a time where we once again need to build a machine, to organize all this. A country that fragments into states, states that fragment into counties, counties that fragment into cities, cites that fragment into streets, and with no cohesion anymore. North Texas using a different currency from south Texas. This guy advocates dissolving the big corporation of the government just so that it can be free real estate for all the little corporations to wage turf wars, which just turns America's relationship with corporations like Mexico's relationship with cartels (which they are subject to by not having a government strong enough to oppose them; them being a minority of private interests, the 25% this guy thinks would never take power in his world).
He admits that Amazon wouldn't profit from fixing Jackson, Mississippi's water, but the governmental institution of AMERICA would, as a sort of corporation whose self-interests is to make sure all its cities have working water, which it DOES do with literally other city. You've got Flint, Michigan too, but that's 2 cities out of the countless cities in one of the biggest countries by landmass on Earth. Pretty good failure rate, considering as comparison to his system which has 100% failure rate, since it doesn't/can't/won't even exist in the first place to serve even a single person (unless he wants to establish his own island and see how long it lasts, which of course he won't because it would mean he as an unpopular ordinary individual has to take on all that risk by himself and knows that it won't be a success, by its own merits or at all)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What misgendering is to a transperson is what "monkey" or the N-word is to black people or any other racial/ethnic/religious slur, it is extremely hurtful and dehumanizing, and the N-word IS banned from Twitter. Because it's hate speech. Harassment or violent threat-like or inciteful language likewise is not protected free speech. Disallowing conservatives from calling black people the N-word is "prejudiced against conservatives" only in effect and not by design because conservatives happen to enjoy engaging in dehumanizing hate speech against minority groups who are a protected class specifically because of all the abuse they get. Not all conservatives, but the ones that do will get banned. It is possible to be a conservative and respect other people's identities, just like how it is possible to refrain from reflexively calling black people the N-word, even though there are those who truly do just think of black people as n*ggers and think nothing of using the word so casually to black people's faces, it's innocent to them and they care not what the word means to other people, because they just can't fathom that black people are people and deserving of equal treatment and not being condescended to.
Would they think taking down Isis "death to America" videos as Twitter discriminating against the Muslim religion? Would taking down antifa videos be Twitter prejudiced against the left's free speech? Shutting down the nastier aspects of these movements does not prevent the civil believers from speaking. Notice how many conservatives are still on Twitter, yet claiming conservatives aren't allowed on Twitter, whilst saying it ON Twitter, with no issues. Just merely having these attitudes is still allowed, up and until the point where you go over that line of Twitter ToS for abusing other users, and there are plenty who get away with even that.
Making a policy against hate speech is not targeted towards conservatives just because conservatives more than other groups are the ones who break the rules of civil discourse. If casually denying other people's identity as an independent self-respecting human is what it means to be a conservative, maybe that should cause some self-reflection about how they are morally right and why it is so important to die on this ideological hill.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Being affable in social situations isn't "being nice". BEING nice = what you stand for being somewhere in the periphery of compassion and empathy for other people, particularly the vulnerable and downtrodden. If you are the one TRODDING, you are not nice. You are the bad guy.
And we all know Christianity has been used as a tool by the truly evil to do truly evil things. Merely being a Christian is not indicative of any level of niceness, only how well you actually follow Jesus's teachings, which 90% of these self-described religious people have no idea of, they just culturally appropriate the aesthetic and not pay attention to any of the substance. In other words, they are posers.
It's also hilarious to me how idiots like Kanye West and Andrew Tate proclaim godliness so much, when they are so against READING; reading being the primary way to understand any of that bullshit they pretend to know/care about, since it all comes from a religious TEXT. A BOOK. And of course, all the hideously idiotic evangelicals who follow Trump, the least Christ-like person imaginable, who doesn't even pretend to be religious with any degree of effort. These people are so easily duped, I'm amazed they have any money at all, and with how little they understand technology I don't know how they haven't sent it all to some Nigerian prince spam email. They don't live in the real world, and they don't even in the imaginary world of religion particularly well either, they just ruin both of them by putting no effort into understanding either of them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
According to Jordan Peterson, the most intellectual intellectual who ever intellectual'd, there was no such thing as truth until some bronze age drifter/grifter who-knows-whos wrote some scribblings of their own personal philosophical musings scattered across different time periods decades after their supposed events occurred and then stitched together by the mandate of some douchebag British king. Then, and only then, did truth begin to exist. A British king from centuries and centuries ago decided what the truth was, and then it became true, and it will always be true forevermore, that's just how truth works. We must, for all the rest of time, defer to the judgment of shmoes from hundreds of years ago who didn't know jack squat about anything who burned witches at the stake and thought the world was flat. This is the wisest course of action for humanity, all our eggs are in that basket, it's the best basket, believe me
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Matt Walsh thinking a world without him in it as a by-default worse world that must be avoided also shows (once again) his narcissism and absolute self-righteousness. He can't imagine a world that works well without his uniquely special and superior magnificence around, just like how he can't love his own child if they think differently than him. Everyone is at peace in world A, but he's not around in that world, so fuck all them, let's create the significantly worse more miserable world B in order to ensure that we are born just the way we are in it.
This goes back to his stances on abortion, every child that exists now HAS to have been born, even though there are more denied births than successful births. If a baby was born from a rape, then it was good that the rape happened, in Matt Walsh's eyes. If one of the other hundreds of millions of sperm hit the egg, we wouldn't be here either, we would just be someone else, and the world would spin just fine without us, it would just create a new sequence of events that pertains to the people who ARE around. The world doesn't intrinsically need any one of us just because we can't imagine the world without us in it.
He also, of course, would not use this "I exist so the circumstances that led to me existing are inherently good/morally justified/God's plan" line of thinking to permit the existence of trans people. Matt Walsh, do you realize that if you blink trans people out of existence in the past, present, and future, that the world would be fundamentally different? And therefore certain people would not even be born?!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If Democrats were buying votes, Republicans would be doing it. They wouldn't bow out of such tactics because they are too good and honorable and noble for it. They don't have such commitments against corruption, Republicans revel in it; they are the ones always most against getting money out of politics or any other such reforms of the shitty systems currently in play. Democrats merely trying to improve people's lives with policies that people would prefer to have is buying votes, I guess. Stephen Crowder can't simultaneously be mad about Hispanics coming in while being giddy that they are going for Trump; if they really were, he'd be happy about them being here.
Pro-Trump Hispanics, anti-Trump Hispanics, or Hispanics of no political opinion whatsoever, Crowder and his ilk just hate Hispanics being here. And well, if he's going to throw stones at them, all we have to do is simply NOT do that, and wow, look where their votes go! To the people who don't reflexively despise their guts and want to make use of them in our country while also extending humanity and dignity to them the way one would any other person.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Water IS a commodity, because not all places have it. This is how it's always been throughout history. Water can't be taken for granted. A town not having water is always on the table. In modern times we think of water as a right, but it's a privilege. Nonetheless, we as a society have it in our best interest to allow for everyone to have this privilege, but under some circumstances that may not be possible and water will once again be treated as the precious hard-fought-over resource that it has always been, and always will be. Even oxygen is a commodity in the context of a place where it is not free and ubiquitous, like say Mars. Clean drinking water is different from oxygen here on Earth because it is not free or ubiquitous. It takes hard work to treat and create that resource, not like river/ocean/lake water. Same with milk vs. pasteurized milk. Same with lightning storms vs. actual electric infrastructure. Never forget that, technically speaking, nothing in life is a right, only a privilege earned through hard work and societal cooperation, and with just a few tweaks in the environment, those things won't be givens anymore and will once again be a tough logistics problem that has to be revisited.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kenharrison4704 What about the mentally ill? Namely, the Trump supporters who lost all reason to the point of going along with January 6th. Since they can't help but be stupid, I'd be fine with them all being pardoned, provided that they assist in taking down those who knowingly manipulated them, namely Trump and the media apparatuses that went along with his big lie. I look at this like an adult taking advantage of a special ed kid stealing stuff for him
Just like how the average citizen cannot be expected to know enough about the law to be their own lawyer, the average citizen, or mentally deficient/compromised ones, cannot be expected to know right from wrong if their leaders who are supposed to represent the embodiment of right prevailing over wrong keep telling them that wrong is right and right is wrong. Similarly, we don't blame the people falling for marketing scams and false advertizers, we blame the scammers and fraudsters. This is why we have consumer protection laws. Same with gambling regulation.
If any sinister intelligence plays their cards right, they can make even sane regular Americans commit crimes, under specific circumstances. Criminals and non-criminals are not different species from each other, we are all operating under the same materials in our brains. Under dire circumstances, even otherwise-good people can do bad things. We can punish people who succumb to human nature's worst tendencies, but that doesn't mean much of anything if we don't punish those at the top who instigated it even more harshly, who prey on humanity's weaknesses
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1