Youtube comments of ItCouldBe Lupus (@itcouldbelupus2842).
-
1400
-
1100
-
764
-
553
-
432
-
371
-
366
-
329
-
287
-
229
-
181
-
181
-
156
-
154
-
147
-
127
-
119
-
117
-
109
-
102
-
95
-
91
-
87
-
86
-
84
-
82
-
80
-
79
-
76
-
75
-
75
-
74
-
73
-
72
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
67
-
65
-
64
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
55
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
@nickthepostpunk5766 The UK is considered a hostile country for trans people especially for trans children (Madrigal-Borloz, Citation2023). Trans healthcare under the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) has long been criticized for causing harm to trans people, with reports of pathologization, coercion and harm in NHS healthcare services (Horton, Citation2022d, Citation2022a; Pearce, Citation2018).
Since the launch of the Cass Review in 2020, the situation for trans children in the UK has continued to decline (Madrigal-Borloz, Citation2023). In 2022 the UK Minister for Health called for clinicians to look for evidence of “what has caused children to be trans,” citing the Cass Review to claim that “identifying as trans” is likely to be a response to “child sex abuse” (Milton, Citation2022). The Cass Review was cited by the British government to justify plans to exclude trans people from legislation to ban conversion therapy (British Psychological Society, Citation2022)
Despite the incredibly strict requirements for existing research to be considered in the systematic reviews, the final report trades freely in citations of poor quality or/and politically motivated work, and even incorrectly cites literature in order to support their desired outcome.
The report repeatedly cites Ken Zucker (1985)[11] to support its assertions about the number of people who regret transition. Zucker is widely known for his heavily criticised claim that 80% of young people ‘desist’ from being trans, as well as his use of practices likened to conversion therapy. They back this up with Thomas Steensma’s (2013)[12] study on factors associated with desistance and persistence. Steensma has clarified publicly that the study should not be used to calculate rates of persistence or desistance[13], as its research design (aimed at studying characteristics of persisting trans patients) risks inflating the number of desisters. The Cass Report uses it to do just this several times.
If I give you the titles of the papers these quotes are from will you go read them?
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
@ElixirEcho Nope, it's not. That's a proven lie. It's people not following social distancing and mask guidelines and having parties instead of Quarantining.
I can guarantee you have no idea what new Zealands population density is because the major city I live outside of has a bigger population than Dallas and is far less spread out. And yet Dallas has such a high rate of cases. We quarantined for a month at level 4 and didn't go down to level 2 for another three weeks. That was when the BLM protests started and thousands of people, including my family, flocked through the streets whilst wearing masks and maintaining good hygiene. Not a single case in our country has been linked to the many large protests we had, many comparable to those in the states in size, not comparable in terms of police brutality because we have standards for police officers in New Zealand and we don't let them get away with murder.
An officer once went to jail for the collateral damage of killing a bystander in an active shooting. Pretty sure in your country that gets officers a promotion.
That aside, there have been no major links to the BLM protests and increased infections in your country, it's been recorded as well as they can.
This is a complete and utter failing on Trumps part, complete lack of sensible leadership and a coherent message.
Haha, I can't believe you tried the ol population density thing when India is doing better than you guys, and they have less space and a billion people.
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
@nickthepostpunk5766 Once again, projection, you have done exactly what you are accusing me of, repeatedly.
You've fired out claims, repeated them without citing evidence, ignored over half of the things I've said, repeated misinformation and have not engaged in good faith to the claims I've made.
You are now running away because you can't acknowledge that you haven't looked at any of the criticisms of the review and don't plan on doing so, which can only be explained by anti trans bias, which you have repeatedly demonstrated in this thread.
When you claim a widely criticized review is correct just because it says what you wanted it to say and refuse to listen to or acknowledge anything to the contrary, then you are biased and not engaging in good faith.
Very disappointing that you lack the humility to admit when you are wrong, refuse to acknowledge facts that go against your narrative and cannot accept for even a moment that maybe you aren't right about everything and you should consider a different perspective.
But this has all been very typical of anti trans activists like yourself.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
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
-
@Simon-xi7lb That wasn't an argument dude, it was a genuine question.
I'm not debating you, I just want to know what you think, I was asking for clarification, it wasn't an attack or judgement.
I don't like Hassan and definitely not Vaush, I don't think they add much value to leftism, I don't even consider Vaush a leftist, just a narcissist who uses leftist ideology to try and win debates.
I would agree that they are essentially grifters, like Ben Shapiro and the like, although far less harmful.
I'm just curious to see if you personally think the more educational leftist video essayists are also grifters or if you think they provide value.
I think they do, I'd be interested to hear an argument for why they don't, if that's something you believe.
I'm just gathering information and opinions, I'm not interested in arguing anything today.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
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
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
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
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
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
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@armondtanz
Maher was never that funny and is a sad old conservative man now, Rogan has always been an extremely mediocre stand up who only sells tickets because of his podcast popularity and he has launched the career of several terrible stand ups who make him look good by comparison.
Jimmy Carr isn't a conservative, he's just an edgy comedian doing the same thing he's been doing for years, nothing much has changed there.
I don't know why you brought up Jimmy Dore other than to prove my point that you're out of touch... and Tarantino?
You mean the film director?
I don't blame conservatives for anything comedy related, this is how it always goes.
They struggle to connect with young people as the world progresses and their references are lost in time and they become bitter and angry as they become irrelevant making room for new comics to take their place.
That's why we have conservatives podcasts now, so the irrelevant old guys have something to occupy their time and out if touch losers can listen to their whining and imagine a world where they were cool and Funny and popular.
There's something for everyone, comedy is doing better than ever.
I'd be happy to recommend you sone stand up specials so you can get back in touch with the scene if you like, don't worry, I was born in the 90s and I have good taste, I'll only recommend the best stuff from what's current, and I won't recommend Hannah Gadsby, I know how how she enrages you lot, definitely more of a art house vibe which has never been your scene I imagine
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
-
7
-
@joshuaholsti No it doesn't, a fetus is not a person who is alive, no more than an egg is a chicken.
The definition doesn't apply and it never has.
You care more about the unborn than the human beings who you want to force to risk their life for the unborn.
"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@ccarr1025 oof, that's a really scientific assessment.
"Like you see in communist countries"
Which countries?
Have you actually seen breadlines in a communist country, or have you just heard about them and you believed it without question?
There are breadlines in Capitalist countries, they're called grocery stores. But you actually have to pay for the bread, unlike breadlines in Socialist countries where the state gives away the bread for free to people in need.
People in Capitalist countries starve to death if they can't afford to pay for their bread.
More people starve to death in Capitalist countries, there are more people scrounging for food in America than in Socialist countries.
Under capitalism, extra food is wasted and locked in dumpsters to prevent poor people from eating it.
A third of all food produced every year, is wasted. Millions of people die of starvation every year in Capitalist countries despite there being enough food produced to feed 10 billion people worldwide, which is more than necessary to feed everyone on the planet.
Scarcity is manufactured for profit.
Socialist countries have better food security than free market countries.
That wasn't evidence bud, you just described a problem that is worse in Capitalist countries and pretended it was evidence that Communists is worse, when it's the exact opposite.
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
-
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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Is vigilantism legal in America now?
You can show up somewhere uninvited, after a police curfew, claim to be protecting property, and then insert yourself into a situation that justifies you, the most heavily armed person involved, to use deadly force.
Incredible, what a country, the law doesn't apply to you so long as you don't protest the police and pretend to be a medic or defending property.
Those two things seem at odds at each other, but nevermind, he tried really hard to cry on the stand!
Not guilty, thank God a strangers car dealership was protected by vigilantism and two worthless lives were lost.
America is sick.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
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
-
@Justme-rt4gj Fetuses are not as human as you or I, no more than an egg is a chicken.
"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@jtstevenson81 No I wouldn't have, because I wouldn't have been in the situation in the first place, I would have deescalated the situation and not antagonized them, I wouldn't have responded to the possibility of getting hit with a skateboard with deadly force.
I would have dropped the gun and put my hands up and told them to stop and turn me into the police.
The guy trying hit him with the skateboard wasn't trying to kill him, he was trying to stop him from running away from what he thought was an unjustified shooting.
I would not have responded like Kyle did, I would have backed up and deescalated, I wouldn't have shit someone in the head for threatening to kill me.
If someone said I'll kill you if I see you again, I'd make sure they didn't see Me again, remove myself from the situation.
So was Kyle pretending to be a medic or defending property?
Those are both contradictory, and he wasn't invited or asked to do either, and he most definitely wasn't qualified to do either.
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
-
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
-
@simonlevy00 Do you know how many thousands more political prisoners Israel is holding without trial?
These aren't terrorists, they are mostly women and children who aren't guilty of any crime.
Neither are the million children who live in Gaza, they aren't terrorists or criminals, but they aren't allowed to leave Gaza or move freely because they are Palestinian, and they are regularly bombed for that as well.
You need to worry less about what the Israeli government says and focus more on what they do.
They are not trying to help Palestine or its people, they are trying to ethnically cleanse it.
No one has any objection to them imprisoning Ham@s militants guilty of stabbings and murder, what we object to is the wholesale slaughter of innocent children being called "self defense".
We object to the war crimes, the actual war crimes Israel has committed that are completely unjustified, such as using white phosphorus or bombing hospitals and ambulances.
The Israeli government has broken international law many times throughout history, even just focusing on what they have done this year is enough to condemn them for atrocities and a body count of innocent life that Ham@s couldn't dream of.
There isn't too much going on, the situation is not as complex as they want you to think it is.
You don't want to be on the wrong side if history supporting a government that is willfully commiting gen0cide.
One hol0caust does not justify another.
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
-
@Thesamurai1999 No, that's not true. Just because rich people own the jobs does not mean they created the jobs. Most jobs exist because they meet a human need or desire at the very least. The ultra wealthy exploit the working class by controlling the jobs, the means of production.
But we don't need owners to create the jobs, the workers could just do the jobs and receive the full value of their labour and the rich owners would have to get a job if they wanted more money, instead of making money by simply owning things.
There are better ways to do things, like worker co-ops for example.
Working class people create value through their labor, Jeff Bezos can't make money unless his workers are in the warehouses doing their jobs, he has nothing without them. Amazon is a great example of why the ultra rich are bad, they monopolize markets and destroy small businesses. I'm sure you're well aware of how many small businesses vanished because of Amazon dominating the market.
Amazon operates it's warehouses in low income and low opportunity areas, so the workers often don't have many job opportunities where they live, so they take a low paying job at Amazon. If they don't like it or kick up a fuss, they can be easily replaced by the many other unemployed people in the area who would rather be exploited by Amazon than be unemployed.
Amazon is extremely profitable, it could afford to pay all of its workers more, which would greatly improve their lives and boost the economy, but they choose not to pay them a living wage. Instead the profits go to the shareholders, the executives, and the owner Bezos.
That's why the rich are bad.
Happy to share links that go more in depth on any of the things I mentioned, if you're interested.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@someonenew439 Also America has no paid leave, terrible maternity leave, lack of sick pay, ridiculous student debt, housing crisis, food deserts, sundown towns, multiple white hate groups, a failing education system, the most incarcerated people on earth, cops that murder people, and FLINT STILL DOESN'T HAVE CLEAN DRINKING WATER.
America is not good.
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
-
@kaceyquispe4666 that's not socialist, the only reason people think Venezuela is Socialist, other than Fox news lying about it, is because their oil industry is nationalized.
That's it.
Their entire economy is built around exporting oil, so when the price of oil crashed, so did their economy.
It had nothing to do with Socialism, the government has been mired in scandal and corruption, largely due to American interference over the past 40 years rendering it a poor badly run country that is easy to exploit for their oil.
Why do you think America is so interested in them?
Why is Venezuela literally the first thing every one points to when they want to argue that socialism doesn't work?
You aren't immune to propoganda dude, you're regurgitating stuff I've heard a dozen times and it's always been factually incorrect.
It was when Tucker Carlson said it, when the last guy said it and when you said it.
The more the American public believes the demonization of Venezuela the easier it is for the US govt to exploit them for oil or justify supporting a cue if the Venezuelan govt decides to actually introduce some Socialist policies to fix things.
Then they'll install a puppet dictatorship.
They've done it before, all throughout south America in the past 5 decades.
They'll try to do it again.
It's really easy to read up this.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@kaceyquispe4666 Giving big Jordan Peterson vibes, talking about hierarchy and biological inefficiencies.
So you don't actually know that socialism is the cause of those countries problems, you're just making an uneducated guess.
Nice one.
Why hasn't socialism been tried everywhere?
Uh, because a system where the workers control the means of people and they are publicly owned by everyone wouldn't be as confirmable for the people who currently own and control the means of production.
Capitalism is a great system for the 1%, they literally control the entire world through their capital. Under socialism they couldn't just profit of workers surplus value because they own the factory or something. They would have to get a real job and actually contribute to society, instead of controlling society fir their own gain.
Look around you man, look at history.
Capitalism has never ended poverty, e en though we gave the resources to do it.
Poverty is increasing, but look who is doing well under capitalism.
The rich and powerful.
It's their system, we are just cogs in the machine.
Capitalists have been very openly opposing socialism for decades, to the point of assassinations and supporting right wing death squads in Socialist countries.
They don't want socialism and they have all the power.
That's why socialism is associated with the phrase "workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains".
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
-
Callisto Uh no, that isn't true at all, have you actually researched this bud?
In ancient Greece, the intersex goddess Cybele was worshipped by trans priests. Christina, the 17th Century Queen/King of Sweden presented as a man, and likely would identify as trans today. A personal heroine of mine is Lucy Hicks Anderson. She was born in 1886, and began presenting as a girl at a young age, choosing to wear dresses to school. She—and this is surprising—had a family doctor who said that was fine, and her mother should raise her as a girl. And it was! For a while, at least. She was beloved in society and married twice. However, when it was found that she had been born with male sex organs in 1944, she was accused of perjuring herself (by stating that there would be no legal objections to her marriage). She told reporters at her trial, "I defy any doctor in the world to prove that I am not a woman. I have lived, dressed, acted just what I am, a woman.”
Trans people are not crazy, and pretending they are to justify your ignorance and bigotry is pathetic.
They obviously deserve love and acceptance.
Your bigotry isn't logical, just based on ignorance and fear of the unknown.
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
-
@nicholaselich1661 Burkina Faso under Thomas Sankaras leadership. Brazil under President Lula. Bolivia under Evo Morales. Vietnam, who beat a world superpower in war and rebuilt their country and population after millions of people were slaughtered.
The Soviet union, who went from a preindustrialized nation to a world superpower in a few decades, the most any country has progressed and modernized in that short of amount of time in human history. They had full employment, healthcare for everyone, a flourishing culture if music, philosophy and art. The defeated the Nazis losing half the country and it's infrastructure in the process (the equivalent to the United States losing the entire east coast and most of the middle of the country) and they still managed to rebuild and win the space race.
There are dozens more examples, from Socialists in Austria solving their homelessness problem, to Cuba achieving nearly zero percent homelessness and having better access to healthcare and a lower infant mortality rate than the United States, all while being under their thumb.
Communism has worked to improve the lives of people everywhere it's been tried, it outperforms capitalism in every standard of living, it's scientifically proven to be a better system.
The fact that communism, or more accurately, socialism improves the lives of people is understood by Capitalist countries like the United States. That's why they spend trillions trying to undermine any communist country through economic warfare, or support coups of violent dictatorships that will be American puppets, or fund right wing death squads that round up and kill people, or simply try to assassinate their leaders.
You know the CIA has openly admitted to interfering in Democratic elections in Latin America over 50 times and the tried and failed to assassinate Fidel Castro over 600 times?
If communism didn't work and magically failed on its own then they wouldn't waste billions of dollars trying to stop it from continuing to work.
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
-
@dan3428 Well Gun control works in the rest of the world, America might be too far gone with it's gun culture to ever be fixed, but there are lots of common sense gun laws they could pass to reduce and restrict the amount of death caused, an assault weapons ban for instance.
During the period where the US had it's last assault weapons ban there were a reduced number of deaths.
Once the ban lapsed, deaths skyrocketed, so there is a lot more they could be doing.
I don't know what Rock you have been living under or what you've been smoking, but there are so many things that have reduced crime, what an insane thing to say.
Poverty is proven to be the root cause of petty crime, which is pretty obvious to anyone with basic reasoning skills, and it's proven that poverty reduction is the most proven and effective way to reduce crime, it's worked everywhere it's been tried.
The neighborhoods with the lowest crime rate don't have the most cops, they have the most resources.
You could look up how countries in Europe have reduced crime, Finland has been very successful, and Portugal's decriminalization of all drugs has reduced the amount of overdoses, drug users and drug related crimes.
There are so many ways to reduce crime, America just refuses to learn from more successful countries and try anything, they just keep doubling down on 20th century "solutions" to crime that have never ever worked, more police and more people in prisons.
But in a country with privately owned for profit prisons, there is no incentive for the rich to want to reduce crime, not when there are billionaires profiting off slave labour in their facilities.
Look at Finland's crime rate and prison system to compare.
You'll be shocked how dystopian Americas system is by comparison.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Jaybiiird I would argue that is the point of capitalism, it's designed to deny the rights of those without money.
Think about what economic systems are, what power structures are, who they are designed by, for what purpose?
Monarchy was designed to serve the monarchs.
Then enough lords wanted to move to feudalism, because it was an advancement for the masses and a great system to be a feudal lord in.
Capitalism was next, and it's essentially the same.
It's designed to be described to the masses as a system where everyone has the opportunity to succeed if you just work hard enough, but it serves the people who the masses end up working for.
Those who are generationally wealthy have complete freedom, those at the bottom have very little.
Billionaires are arguably more powerful in today's society than Feudal lords were in our last economic system.
This economic system has outlived its usefulness, we need to move to a more egalitarian, resource based economy, where resources are distributed based on human need rather than profit.
We would still have jobs and could use money to buy luxury goods, but everything a human being needs to live and be a happy, healthy and productive member of society would be provided for them by that society.
Not everyone would need to work, and most people would only need to work about 5 hours a day, 4 days a week.
Any essential jobs needed for the upkeep of society that were lacking in workers could offer better benefits to entice more workers.
Human beings enjoy working, we don't need extra motivation to work, especially if all our needs are met and we have control over when and how we work.
Don't you think you would still want a job, even in a society where you don't need one in order to have food and shelter?
Working 5 hours a day, a few days a week, in exchange you can have money to buy videogames or go see a play or hear live music?
I would love that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rhymstien3975 I think the statement us correct but not your reasoning.
The US isn't the caretaker of the world, it's the occupier.
It's basically a protection racket, they police the world and get involved often when non one asks them to but it's for the benefit of the empire, not for the protection of others.
It's almost always purely about military positions and business interests.
The US doesn't stop atrocities and war crimes, it often funds and commits them, like with Pinochet for example.
And most of the time the US just makes other places worse, like in Iraq and Afghanistan for example.
They weren't wanted, the countries were even flourishing in the 70s and 80s but it was unacceptable and unhelpful to the US, so they spent billions of dollars and decades blowing the place up and making it worse, like they have done in many other places.
The US likes to cast itself as a noble protector of the "free world" but that's a farce, usually US intervention results in less freedom and more dead people.
It's about money and power.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@CSPORTPDX You're making a lot of assumptions about me dude.
I'm doing my best not to make them about you, that's why I'm asking you so many questions.
Why are you so sure that you already know everything about me, that I trust and listen to the mainstream media?
You could ask me a question or two, actually talk to me like a human being, instead of assuming so much.
Do you assume that Obama is my hero or something?
Is that the image you have of me?
I'm not deflecting to the Epstein rumor mill, I'm asking you directly whether his connection to Epstein bothers you and you refuse to give me a straight and honest answer.
I'm trying to be as transparent and honest as possible and my intention is not to insult you just because I disagree with you.
I would appreciate it if you could try and do the same, we can just ask questions instead of making assumptions and it will be a more valuable interaction because of it.
Look, we're talking about Donald Trump.
You adore him.
I despise him.
I'm enjoying trying to find out why you feel so differently from me about him, I just want to understand, to see things from your perspective.
But when you talk about how bad Biden is as if that has anything to do with Trump, that is a deflection.
Asking about Trump's connection to Epstein is not a deflection, it's one of the biggest reasons I despise him, because I believe he is a child predator and sexual abuser like his best friend of 10 years, Epstein.
I am not deflecting by talking about that, I'm trying to get you to address it directly and honestly.
You seem like a good person, not someone who is a coward or dishonest.
You acknowledge that Trump has a connection to Epstein right?
Why doesn't that bother you?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kathleenmahoney7650 America has not been fighting poverty for 60 years, the government has been making it worse for the past 60 years, wealth inequality and poverty skyrocketed under Regan and hasn't come right since.
America loves its virtue signalling by declaring endless wars against nebulas concepts, surprised you fell for that line.
Progressives don't want the govt to be our parents, we just want our taxes to be spent on something useful like helping human beings and improving society, that's literally the ENTIRE point of taxes.
We don't want our taxes wasted on a bloated military budget to be used to kill poor people in other parts of the world or tax breaks or bailouts for the rich.
You want corporations to have all the power and control everything, or at least the people you vote for want that.
I don't know what obvious lies or pandering nonsense you're gullible enough to fall for that makes you vote republican, but that's the only goal of the GOP.
Erode the government, serve the rich and screw the poor.
You're voting against your own interests Kathleen, because I'm assuming you aren't rich.
But maybe you aren't a republican, maybe you're an independent or something.
2
-
2
-
@FraterL Everyone flocks to the United States because it has better economic opportunities because the United States actively makes the rest of the world worse. It has nothing to do with the United States being a democratic land of freedom. More people have Left the United States in the past few years than entered it anyway, this narrative that everyone is flocking to the United States simply isn't accurate.
Tell me what aspects of your life you have democratic control over?
You get to vote for a new corporate mascot to serve the will of corporations and not fix anything in the country every four years, that isn't democracy. It's the illusion of democracy. You have no control over almost any aspect of your lives, corporate lobbyists have more influence over what laws get written and passed than you do.
You don't have any control over your life at work, Capitalist businesses are by design tyrannys that are controlled by the boss, owner or board of directors.
You have no control over how much you pay for healthcare and insurance, corporations charge you as much as they like, what else are you going to do, die?
Capitalism is tyranny, it's the opposite of democracy and freedom.
Capitalism only provides freedom for the rich, and there are still millions of people who believe they can go to America and become rich through hard work alone but it isn't true. Just because millions of people believe something doesn't mean it's true.
Everyone used to believe the world was flat, but it never was.
Capitalism is a terrible system and more people are waking up to that fact.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PheonixKnght But those with all the money have all the power, they never have to work a day in their life in order to be able to afford to live abd they set the prices on everything and write the laws.
Us poor people don't have a choice, pay the billionaires whatever they ask or die, those are our choices. It isn't a voluntary system, it's coercion.
It doesn't have to be like this. We have enough resources for everyone, we have enough food, we have enough houses. There is so much we could be doing and so much that needs to be fixed, there shouldn't be any homeless or unemployed people struggling to find work just so they can afford to live.
This system serves a handful of rich ghouls who have more than anyone could ever need whilst billions slave away and die in poverty.
We could build a better system, one without the ultra wealthy and the extremely poor, where we could all live decent middle class lives.
Capitalism is a terrible system that only works for a select few, that's why they've spent years trying to convince everyone that capitalism is human nature, it's natural, it's the way the world is supposed to work.
But that's a lie. A lie that serves them.
Stop being a slave and realize the rich aren't on your side, we don't have to do what they say and accept the world they built, we can change things, we can make the world better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
JurClark34 Do you even know what a political ideology is? It's not a magic spell, governments don't just "end up" a totalitarian regime, they become then when those who lead them choose to be dictators and have enough power to stay in control without getting overthrown or killed.
Like for example, while plenty of countries are Capitalist, not all of them are imperialist oppressors like The United States and most don't openly break international law and commit war crimes. Some countries like Finland and Portugal manage to have Capitalist business practices and trade markets and still remain peaceful with other countries and treat the most vulnerable in their country with respect and dignity, whose progressive drug and criminal justice systems have been overwhelmingly successful for everyone in their countries.
Since the cold war the United States has been the biggest superpower and hasn't allowed almost any government calling itself communist to exist, Vietnam is one of the only countries to beat the US in a war and managed to grow into a prosperous nation where the government is well liked by the people, it's one of the top retirement spots for Americans. They have a government that calls itself communist that isn't a totalitarian regime, although in order to participate in a Capitalist controlled world it has to participate in Capitalism to some degree.
There have been many countries that successfully implemented democratically elected Socialist/communist governments that oversaw economic growth and decrease in Poverty, before their leaders were killed or their government's overthrown by US backed cues, all of which the CIA has publicly admitted to doing. This has happened in Bolivia, Brazil and Burkina Faso, and many other places.
The truth is the US is so desperate to keep alive the lie that "communism doesn't work, it just fails automatically" that they've spent billions of dollars over the last 6 decades making sure that no country that tried to implement any form of left wing government was allowed to flourish.
The only countries that managed to remain unharmed were in Europe and you can bet that if the majority of sweden's population was brown instead of white the United States would declare them dangerous radical Leftists and destabilize their country just like every one in south america.
The United States is terrified that communism does actually work, because if enough Americans start to see it working in places around the world all of the politicians and billionaires and lobbyists will get real scared, because the American people might start demanding sone of those communist policies everyone else has.
More and more young people are realizing that the American Capitalist system only serves the rich, and everyone is much better off in countries like Finland, Vietnam, Portugal.
Democratic socialism is possible, and it's a much better system then the 20th century Capitalist model.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jameeyg87 nice strawman but that isn't what I'm saying.
No, everyone has a unique biological sex on the spectrum, that's how spectrums work.
It isn't a binary, the binary was socially constructed in recorded history, I don't know the exact time off the top of my head.
The point is right wingers understanding of biological sex is wrong and outdated, and based on a social construct.
Which is what their definition of women is based on, it's based on a faulty premise.
And their definition of women is designed to exclude trans people.
Yes gender identity and biological sex are not the same thing.
But Walsh's argument that trans people's gender identity is invalid because of biological sex is incorrect, it's built on a rocky foundation, kinda like his understanding of reality, because this is a man who thinks God literally created the earth in 7 days, that all humans are descendants of two people and that Noah's ark was real.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheReddShinobi13 That's a pretty ironic example considering I'm from New Zealand.
That isn't my logic at all, I did not make an argument that if a Maori person lived in England for generations they would no longer be indigenous to the land.
And I understand what a diaspora is very well, I know that's what happened to Jewish people and it's very sad that it's what they are doing to the Palestinians.
But the Israelis are not indigenous to Palestine, they are European colonizers of that land.
DNA is not the determining factor in whether someone is indigenous or not, although if it was the Israelis have less shared DNA with ancestors from Judea than Palestinians do, so that argument wouldn't work in that case either.
I'm not denying history, but Jewish people living in the general region thousands of years ago do not give Israelis the right to call themselves indigenous while they colonize another group.
It's not their land, they have zero claim to the land.
They are colonizers who don't have any connection to the land whatsoever.
Please go learn what indigenous means and stop repeating this silly lie that Israelis are indigenous to the Palestinians land.
Israel didn't exist 100 years ago, there is no land for them to claim indigeneity to.
There is no history to justify your argument.
The country was created through colonial violence by taking land from the indigenous, it's not possible to be indigenous to a country created under those circumstances.
This would be like me, a white boy from New Zealand, going to Africa and killing people and taking the land with the justification that "I'm indigenous to this land, it used to be Pangea, my ancestors lived here, I have the right to this land.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MothmanCold Learn to read dude, I never said he didn't have any right to talk about it, I said he should do the bare minimum of actually learning about it before he tries to wax philosophical about it.
Chappelle show was satire, it's goal was to be funny, not to be smart. Some of it may have been offensive to some but that's not the issue, it never has been.
His latest special is not just him trying to be funny, he's trying to be smart and make a point. I'm all for that, but if you try to do that and just perpetuate ignorance abd bigotry then people are going to call that out.
THAT'S WHAT FREE SPEECH IS. It isn't freedom to say anything you want without consequences or feedback.
I'm not drawing a line about what people can of can't say and when.
But if you speak about a community that you know nothing about then that community is obviously going to call you out on the parts that are ignorant and harmful, that's how it's always worked, now marginalized communities are able to have their voices heard without having to get famous first.
This is free speech, it applies to everyone, comedians don't have special privileges. If you say something incorrect then people are going to tell you. That's how it works.
Dave can say whatever he wants. But he isn't going to be congratulated for it if he fails to be funny or say something meaningful and true.
There were some funny moments in the special. But when his jokes on trans people are no funnier or better informed than ones you could read on 4chan then it's clear he dropped the ball.
Dave used to be hilarious and surprising, at times poignant. Now he may as well be reading bad jokes from the internet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gristlybillow7050 I'm not joking, you're just being a reactionary and not thinking critically.
Trans people have been competing in sports for well over a decade, most do not win or dominate in their chosen sport, because trans people don't possess a biological advantage.
A few trans people winning does not change the fact that on average, trans people have no advantage in sport.
That's how averages work buddy.
Leah Thomas was just a better athlete.
She didn't win because she is trans, she won because she did better than everyone else, her being trans is irrelevant.
The same way all the people who lose don't lose because they are trans, they just didn't do as well and them being trans isn't the deciding factor in that outcome, it's irrelevant.
You can't just pick and choose when you apply this logic.
If trans people had an advantage then they would win a lot more often, but they don't, they usually don't win.
Sometimes they do, but that doesn't change the facts.
We record the times and scores of athletes, that's how sports work, so it's quite easy to analyze that data and see if trans people have statistically had an advantage over cis people in their chosen sport, and they don't.
Trans people are being banned because of a political push that has nothing whatsoever to do with fairness in sports, the goal is to discriminate against trans people, there is no scientific basis for banning them.
You can't say every trans person that loses at sport did so because they weren't good enough but then any that do happen to win only won because they are trans, that's a double standard.
You're the one being unfair by applying that double standard, it disproves your own logic and reveals that discrimination is the priority here, not fairness.
If you actually want sports to be fair you should be pushing for sport hit to be segregated by gender or sex and use a less arbitrary criteria for organizing sports, that way no one has to be discriminated against and everyone can compete on the basis of their skill, weight class, ect...
But I think we know that this was never about making sports fair, it was about discrimination, keeping trans people out.
Please tell me where I am wrong bud, please.
I'm not virtue signalling, this is just what I genuinely believe.
I'm going to assume this is your genuine beliefs even though you are ignorant about this topic, and I won't just assume you are trying to score virtue signalling points with bigots.
I'm not telling lies, you just aren't applying logic to the situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertmichalic4500
This economic system has outlived its usefulness, we need to move to a more egalitarian, resource based economy, where resources are distributed based on human need rather than profit.
We would still have jobs and could use money to buy luxury goods, but everything a human being needs to live and be a happy, healthy and productive member of society would be provided for them by that society.
Not everyone would need to work, and most people would only need to work about 5 hours a day, 4 days a week.
Any essential jobs needed for the upkeep of society that were lacking in workers could offer better benefits to entice more workers.
Human beings enjoy working, we don't need extra motivation to work, especially if all our needs are met and we have control over when and how we work.
Don't you think you would still want a job, even in a society where you don't need one in order to have food and shelter?
Working 5 hours a day, a few days a week, in exchange you can have money to buy videogames or go see a play or hear live music?
I would love that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, they want to discriminate and eliminate trans people, they don't care about children at all.
Children are not having surgeries, except in some extremely rare cases, and it is not happening as a first resort or on a large scale.
If conservatives care about children, why are they only targeting trans kids?
Why aren't they doing anything to fix the broken foster care system?
That affects thousands more children and leads to death and abuse that are far more damaging long term than any gender affirming care, but conservatives don't give a shit.
It's about hating trans people, not protection children, you can tell because the trans part is what they are obsessed with, when it comes to just protecting children they are silent, because they are irrelevant unless there is a way to make it about trans people.
You've been lied to and fed a false narrative, don't buy into it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TALKATIVE_CARTOON "All that".
You literally listed a single achievement made by people who work for him, most of his developments are complete failures, overvalued vanity items, or flat out lies.
He's a talentless trust fund kid who is rich because his dad owned an emerald mine run on slave labor.
He's a narcissist, a pathological liar, impossible to work with, a union buster, and an absentee father to at least 7 children.
He exposed himself to an employee and offered to buy her a horse to shut her up, and that's almost certainly not the only instance of sexual misconduct, just the most well known.
He would never have been successful if he wasn't born rich and he doesn't generate enough money to pay his employees, the government does, he gets so much money in government grants.
He isn't Tony Stark and he isn't making the world better.
Stop being such a naive and gullible man, you're just buying into the narrative he paid a PR team to put out there.
Simping for billionaires is sad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnmorris8444 Are there less Asian people in America living in poverty than there are white people?
You're literally arguing my point for me, a large percentage of the Asian population in America are immigrants who moved there with more money than most poor white people have, of which there is a much higher percentage.
If you were to look deeper into the statistics on Asian crime you'd probably find that Asian people living in poverty are the ones committing the most crime.
Poverty is the root cause, look into any racial and cultural group and you'll find that the ones living in poverty are committing the sorts of crimes we are talking about.
That applies to White people as well, despite the fact that White people have privilege in America due to its white supremacist roots, many white people live in poverty and are economically disadvantaged just like other cultural groups.
Arguments that conservatives like Sean make about black crime and cultural problems are used to divide the poor working class, so they don't unite and demand change.
That's why things like the minimum wage or the homestead act was given to White people only after slavery ended, the rich couldn't have the poor white people realizing their interests aligned with all the recently freed but extremely poor black people.
So decisions were made to create those hierarchies and divisions, that's what systemic racism is.
It's been well studied for decades, and is extremely relevant when talking about crime, especially crime in the black community.
You're just wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnmorris8444 What evidence is there that culture is a factor at all?
I don't know why there is less crime in the Asian community, other than the fact that most Asian people are immigrants and regardless of cultural background immigrants tend to commit less crime than those born in the country.
Asians commit plenty of crime in Asian countries, pretty sure you'd find that immigrants in Asia also commit less crime than nationals.
But even if there is a cultural factor, how is that relevant to this debate?
There are very simple policies that are tried and tested for reducing poverty, they have been proven to work.
Poverty is without a doubt the main universal factor in crime and it can be easily addressed through policy.
How would you implement a policy that addresses the cultural factor, and why would you focus on a minor factor that isn't universal rather than the main factor which would universally help everyone.
You guys on the right are making this more complicated than it needs to be.
Just address poverty and stop locking so many people up, other countries have tried it and succeeded, it's an overall benefit to society.
It's time to stop doubling down on 20th century solutions that don't work and try a solution from the 21st century with a better chance of success.
I know there are a few right wing billionaires who are currently profiting from the slave labor in their for-profit prisons, but why would we listen to the opinions of obviously evil people?
They don't want crime to go down, the largest population of incarcerated people is a resource to ghouls like that, but I personally don't think we should let ghouls decide how society functions.
1
-
@johnmorris8444
Poverty has been proven to be the main factor, it isn't just an empty left wing talking point, it's been well researched for decades.
I could recommend a few books on it if you'd like.
You're just regurgitating right wing talking points that have no evidence supporting them, just open ended questions that imply something without actually proving it.
I'm not pretending it's the driving force, there is overwhelming evidence that it is.
You probably don't even believe systemic racism is real despite the overwhelming evidence that it is.
It's not a conspiracy theory, and you still didn't answer my question about how one would pass a policy that influences any cultural factors in crime.
Do you even want to reduce crime?
We've already found the solution.
Look at what Portugal has done with decriminalization of drugs and treating addiction as a medical issue, which it is, rather than a criminal one.
Overdoses and drug use have gone down, addicts are getting help and living healthy lives instead of being locked up in cages to get worse.
Look at how Finland has addressed homelessness and prisons, that is having a huge positive impact.
Other countries have already found progressive solutions that work, America could just copy these solutions, the country had the money to do it.
The government could permanently end homelessness for 20 billion, a one time payment that would save the country money in the long run, reduce crime, reduce stress on the healthcare system.
Don't conservatives care about being fiscally responsible?
It's strange that they would rather waste more taxpayer money letting the homeless die in the streets when they could save money by housing the homeless and reduce human misery.
It's almost like cruelty is the point of Conservative politics.
Seems like you don't even care that there are millions of people incarcerated for non violent crimes that are being exploited by slave labor which is enriching billionaires.
Do you think that's a good thing or do you just not care?
It's interesting how you ignore that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@armondtanz I see you're an old head who is now stuck in a conservative bubble so that explains why you are so out of touch with reality and not up to date with where comedy is actually at.
Your references are conspicuously out of date.
There are so many new young comedians working today who are getting their start on smaller comedy channels playing small rooms, the comedy scene is booming.
As for progressive comics pushing the genre forward there is James Acaster, Bo Burnham, Josh Johnson, Mike Birbiglia and Bill Burr.
There are also older comedians like Marc Maron and Frankie Boyle who are better than ever and haven't let themselves get out of touch with culture and have stayed hilarious and relevant.
Maher was never that funny and is a sad old conservative nam now, Rogan has always been an extremely mediocre stand up who only sells tickets because of his podcast popularity and he has launched the career of several terrible stand ups who make him look good by comparison.
Jimmy Carr isn't a conservative, he's just an edgy comedian doing the same thing he's been doing for years, nothing much has changed there.
I don't know why you brought up Jimmy Dore other than to prove my point that you're out of touch... and Tarantino?
You mean the film director?
I don't blame conservatives for anything comedy related, this is how it always goes.
They struggle to connect with young people as the world progresses and their references are lost in time and they become bitter and angry as they become irrelevant making room for new comics to take their place.
That's why we have conservatives podcasts now, so the irrelevant old guys have something to occupy their time and out if touch losers can listen to their whining and imagine a world where they were cool and Funny and popular.
There's something for everyone, comedy is doing better than ever.
I'd be happy to recommend you sone stand up specials so you can get back in touch with the scene if you like, don't worry, I was born in the 90s and I have good taste, I'll only recommend the best stuff from what's current, and I won't recommend Hannah Gadsby, I know how how she enrages you lot, definitely more of a art house vibe which has never been your scene I imagine.
1
-
@armondtanz I see you're an old head who is now stuck in a conservative bubble so that explains why you are so out of touch with reality and not up to date with where comedy is actually at.
Your references are conspicuously out of date.
There are so many new young comedians working today who are getting their start on smaller comedy channels playing small rooms, the comedy scene is booming.
As for progressive comics pushing the genre forward there is James Acaster, Bo Burnham, Josh Johnson, Mike Birbiglia and Bill Burr.
There are also older comedians like Marc Maron and Frankie Boyle who are better than ever and haven't let themselves get out of touch with culture and have stayed hilarious and relevant.
Maher was never that funny and is a sad old conservative nam now, Rogan has always been an extremely mediocre stand up who only sells tickets because of his podcast popularity and he has launched the career of several terrible stand ups who make him look good by comparison.
Jimmy Carr isn't a conservative, he's just an edgy comedian doing the same thing he's been doing for years, nothing much has changed there.
I don't know why you brought up Jimmy Dore other than to prove my point that you're out of touch... and Tarantino?
You mean the film director?
I don't blame conservatives for anything comedy related, this is how it always goes.
They struggle to connect with young people as the world progresses and their references are lost in time and they become bitter and angry as they become irrelevant making room for new comics to take their place.
That's why we have conservatives podcasts now, so the irrelevant old guys have something to occupy their time and out if touch losers can listen to their whining and imagine a world where they were cool and Funny and popular.
There's something for everyone, comedy is doing better than ever.
I'd be happy to recommend you sone stand up specials so you can get back in touch with the scene if you like, don't worry, I was born in the 90s and I have good taste, I'll only recommend the best stuff from what's current, and I won't recommend Hannah Gadsby, I know how how she enrages you lot, definitely more of a art house vibe which has never been your scene I imagine.
1
-
@armondtanz I see you're an old head who is now stuck in a conservative bubble so that explains why you are so out of touch with reality and not up to date with where comedy is actually at.
Your references are conspicuously out of date.
There are so many new young comedians working today who are getting their start on smaller comedy channels playing small rooms, the comedy scene is booming.
As for progressive comics pushing the genre forward there is James Acaster, Bo Burnham, Josh Johnson, Mike Birbiglia and Bill Burr.
There are also older comedians like Marc Maron and Frankie Boyle who are better than ever and haven't let themselves get out of touch with culture and have stayed hilarious and relevant.
Maher was never that funny and is a sad old conservative nam now, Rogan has always been an extremely mediocre stand up who only sells tickets because of his podcast popularity and he has launched the career of several terrible stand ups who make him look good by comparison.
Jimmy Carr isn't a conservative, he's just an edgy comedian doing the same thing he's been doing for years, nothing much has changed there.
I don't know why you brought up Jimmy Dore other than to prove my point that you're out of touch... and Tarantino?
You mean the film director?
I don't blame conservatives for anything comedy related, this is how it always goes.
They struggle to connect with young people as the world progresses and their references are lost in time and they become bitter and angry as they become irrelevant making room for new comics to take their place.
That's why we have conservatives podcasts now, so the irrelevant old guys have something to occupy their time and out if touch losers can listen to their whining and imagine a world where they were cool and Funny and popular.
There's something for everyone, comedy is doing better than ever.
I'd be happy to recommend you sone stand up specials so you can get back in touch with the scene if you like, don't worry, I was born in the 90s and I have good taste, I'll only recommend the best stuff from what's current, and I won't recommend Hannah Gadsby, I know how how she enrages you lot, definitely more of a art house vibe which has never been your scene I imagine.
1
-
@armondtanz @armondtanz I see you're an old head who is now stuck in a conservative bubble so that explains why you are so out of touch with reality and not up to date with where comedy is actually at.
Your references are conspicuously out of date.
There are so many new young comedians working today who are getting their start on smaller comedy channels playing small rooms, the comedy scene is booming.
As for progressive comics pushing the genre forward there is James Acaster, Bo Burnham, Josh Johnson, Mike Birbiglia and Bill Burr.
There are also older comedians like Marc Maron and Frankie Boyle who are better than ever and haven't let themselves get out of touch with culture and have stayed hilarious and relevant.
Maher was never that funny and is a sad old conservative nam now, Rogan has always been an extremely mediocre stand up who only sells tickets because of his podcast popularity and he has launched the career of several terrible stand ups who make him look good by comparison.
Jimmy Carr isn't a conservative, he's just an edgy comedian doing the same thing he's been doing for years, nothing much has changed there.
I don't know why you brought up Jimmy Dore other than to prove my point that you're out of touch... and Tarantino?
You mean the film director?
I don't blame conservatives for anything comedy related, this is how it always goes.
They struggle to connect with young people as the world progresses and their references are lost in time and they become bitter and angry as they become irrelevant making room for new comics to take their place.
That's why we have conservatives podcasts now, so the irrelevant old guys have something to occupy their time and out if touch losers can listen to their whining and imagine a world where they were cool and Funny and popular.
There's something for everyone, comedy is doing better than ever.
I'd be happy to recommend you sone stand up specials so you can get back in touch with the scene if you like, don't worry, I was born in the 90s and I have good taste, I'll only recommend the best stuff from what's current, and I won't recommend Hannah Gadsby, I know how how she enrages you lot, definitely more of a art house vibe which has never been your scene I imagine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ianio68430 What are they teaching?
That trans people exist?
That gender identity is different from biological sex?
Those are facts, schools are supposed to teach kids facts.
No one is forcing kids to be trans, no one wants them to be the targets of religious fanatics like Matt Walsh, the reality is that some kids are trans.
And how those children should be supported should be between the parents and their doctors, not Matt Walsh and the people who think exactly as he does and want to impose their will upon others and using moral panic about "save the children" while supporting a political movement that welcomes people like Matt Gaetz, Roy Moore, and Donald Trump.
There's more evidence of conservative politicians being a danger to children than there is of trans people, who are more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators.
You just eat it up from propogandists like Walsh and Tucker and probably vote for the party that routinely opposes bills and action that would improve the lives of millions of American children, like canceling school lunch debt, properly funding education, free school lunches, affordable child care, affordable housing, and fixing the broken foster care system that leads to so much child abuse.
And yet the American right seems to focus exclusively on the less than 1% of kids that are trans, do you ever wonder why that is?
Do you think it might be to distract you from all the real issues that they are refusing to fix?
Maybe think for yourself for a moment instead of letting a mouthpiece like Walsh do your thinking for you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bosertheropode5443 No, conservatives just said they would vote for him for president, offered him jobs, openly praised him for killing two people, interviewed him every chance they got, and filmed a documentary glorifying him.
He worships cops and dreams of becoming one, American cops have well documented ties to white supremacy, historically and currently. He hung out with members of the proud boys after Kenosha, a violent right wing militia with direct ties to white supremacy.
He keeps hanging out with Tucker Carlson, the most popular and trusted media figure if white supremacists.
Dude has a lot of red flags, the fact that he responded to a right wing militia Facebook pages call to action to arm themselves and "assist" the police in Kenosha, to "protect property".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bosertheropode5443 1 @böser Theropode You know Germany had to pay reparations to Europe for both world wars? Haiti had to pay France reparations for all their list wealth when the Haitians rose up and freed themselves, those reparations have left Haiti impoverished to this day.
Reparations are paid all the time, but only to white people.
White people invented affirmative action for themselves and benefit from it more than anyone.
No one is paying for the sins of their grandfather, the United States government is. Taxes are already wasted in trillions every year on military spending, paying reparations to the descendants of slaves will drastically improve the lives of millions of hardworking Americans, reduce wealth inequality and bolster the economy.
It's not only the right thing to do it's also the smartest thing to do.
White people got to keep all the wealth they made off slave labor, the freed slaves mostly were forced into indentured servitude, or were so poor that they had to steal to survive and were then imprisoned and made slaves again. As I'm sure you know the 13th amendment states that slaver is legal for prisoners, and with America today having the highest population of incarcerated people, for profit prisons, and corporations making billions using prison slave labor, then it's safe to say that slavery hasn't been as abolished as you were taught in school. Freeing the slaves doesn't magically fix anything.
During the reconstruction era free people formed their own communities and built their own wealth. That was all destroyed and stolen again by white people and the newly formed KKK.
There is so much that took place in American history after slavery ended that is worthy of reparations.
It's the least that could be done to start to undo the institutional racism the United States is built on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@burbujita0811 Steven is an idiot, this is an absolutely terrible criteria for judging whether someone did well, listening to the cadence of their voice.
This is literally how Ben Shapiro pretends to win debates in front of college freshman, he'll make a strawman argument or just say complete nonsense in a calm and pithy manner with a smug smile, and the audience laughs because it sounds like he said something smart when he in fact didn't.
Body language and sense of humor are not criteria for judging a debate, the content of what was said and the cogency of the argument is all that matters.
Hawley didn't even make an argument, he just played word games smugly and got her flustered.
Conservatives are such emotional and irrational people, this is the least logical and rational criteria there is, seriously, you guys are like children.
It sounds like he won, therefore he won.
Nevermind that he didn't actually say anything of value.
But I guess Trump really lowered the bar for y'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
-
@robertmarshall2502 The UK is considered a hostile country for trans people especially for trans children (Madrigal-Borloz, Citation2023). Trans healthcare under the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) has long been criticized for causing harm to trans people, with reports of pathologization, coercion and harm in NHS healthcare services (Horton, Citation2022d, Citation2022a; Pearce, Citation2018).
Since the launch of the Cass Review in 2020, the situation for trans children in the UK has continued to decline (Madrigal-Borloz, Citation2023). In 2022 the UK Minister for Health called for clinicians to look for evidence of “what has caused children to be trans,” citing the Cass Review to claim that “identifying as trans” is likely to be a response to “child sex abuse” (Milton, Citation2022). The Cass Review was cited by the British government to justify plans to exclude trans people from legislation to ban conversion therapy (British Psychological Society, Citation2022)
Despite the incredibly strict requirements for existing research to be considered in the systematic reviews, the final report trades freely in citations of poor quality or/and politically motivated work, and even incorrectly cites literature in order to support their desired outcome.
The report repeatedly cites Ken Zucker (1985)[11] to support its assertions about the number of people who regret transition. Zucker is widely known for his heavily criticised claim that 80% of young people ‘desist’ from being trans, as well as his use of practices likened to conversion therapy. They back this up with Thomas Steensma’s (2013)[12] study on factors associated with desistance and persistence. Steensma has clarified publicly that the study should not be used to calculate rates of persistence or desistance[13], as its research design (aimed at studying characteristics of persisting trans patients) risks inflating the number of desisters. The Cass Report uses it to do just this several times.
If I give you the titles of the papers these quotes are from will you go read them?
1
-
@robertmarshall2502 The UK is considered a hostile country for trans people especially for trans children (Madrigal-Borloz, Citation2023). Trans healthcare under the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) has long been criticized for causing harm to trans people, with reports of pathologization, coercion and harm in NHS healthcare services (Horton, Citation2022d, Citation2022a; Pearce, Citation2018).
Since the launch of the Cass Review in 2020, the situation for trans children in the UK has continued to decline (Madrigal-Borloz, Citation2023). In 2022 the UK Minister for Health called for clinicians to look for evidence of “what has caused children to be trans,” citing the Cass Review to claim that “identifying as trans” is likely to be a response to “child sex abuse” (Milton, Citation2022). The Cass Review was cited by the British government to justify plans to exclude trans people from legislation to ban conversion therapy (British Psychological Society, Citation2022)
Despite the incredibly strict requirements for existing research to be considered in the systematic reviews, the final report trades freely in citations of poor quality or/and politically motivated work, and even incorrectly cites literature in order to support their desired outcome.
The report repeatedly cites Ken Zucker (1985)[11] to support its assertions about the number of people who regret transition. Zucker is widely known for his heavily criticised claim that 80% of young people ‘desist’ from being trans, as well as his use of practices likened to conversion therapy. They back this up with Thomas Steensma’s (2013)[12] study on factors associated with desistance and persistence. Steensma has clarified publicly that the study should not be used to calculate rates of persistence or desistance[13], as its research design (aimed at studying characteristics of persisting trans patients) risks inflating the number of desisters. The Cass Report uses it to do just this several times.
If I give you the titles of the papers these quotes are from will you go read them?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertmarshall2502
The UK is considered a hostile country for trans people especially for trans children (Madrigal-Borloz, Citation2023). Trans healthcare under the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) has long been criticized for causing harm to trans people, with reports of pathologization, coercion and harm in NHS healthcare services (Horton, Citation2022d, Citation2022a; Pearce, Citation2018).
Since the launch of the Cass Review in 2020, the situation for trans children in the UK has continued to decline (Madrigal-Borloz, Citation2023). In 2022 the UK Minister for Health called for clinicians to look for evidence of “what has caused children to be trans,” citing the Cass Review to claim that “identifying as trans” is likely to be a response to “child sex abuse” (Milton, Citation2022). The Cass Review was cited by the British government to justify plans to exclude trans people from legislation to ban conversion therapy (British Psychological Society, Citation2022)
Despite the incredibly strict requirements for existing research to be considered in the systematic reviews, the final report trades freely in citations of poor quality or/and politically motivated work, and even incorrectly cites literature in order to support their desired outcome.
The report repeatedly cites Ken Zucker (1985)[11] to support its assertions about the number of people who regret transition. Zucker is widely known for his heavily criticised claim that 80% of young people ‘desist’ from being trans, as well as his use of practices likened to conversion therapy. They back this up with Thomas Steensma’s (2013)[12] study on factors associated with desistance and persistence. Steensma has clarified publicly that the study should not be used to calculate rates of persistence or desistance[13], as its research design (aimed at studying characteristics of persisting trans patients) risks inflating the number of desisters. The Cass Report uses it to do just this several times.
If I give you the titles of the papers these quotes are from will you go read 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
-
@haywoodjablowme4945 Those are my thoughts on the matter.
You're right that Sam does nothing good for Crowder, getting destroyed in a debate by Sam would be really embarrassing for Crowder, which is probably why he keeps running away.
But most people Crowder debates have smaller platforms than he does, especially the college kids he debates in change my mind.
Those are debates by the way, not "conversations".
If you are having a conversation with someone and either party is trying to change the others mind by arguing, that's a debate, just an informal one.
That's literally what debate means.
Enough of Stevens audience wants him to debate Sam Seder, if he really isn't scared and believes he could hold his own then he should do it.
But everyone knows that he doesn't have what it takes.
All Crowder does is vomit boring, offensive drivel, so you must be used to it.
At least Sam would get Crowder sweating and stammering, maybe he can have one of the 5 guys his Dad pays to sit in the room and laugh to sub in for him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rey You aren't better, you're just bigoted.
You aren't pro life, you're pro-forced birth and anti-freedom.
Conservatives have been making a lot of noise about drag Queens lately, and generally pushing a narrative that LGBTQ people are inherently harmful to children.
Why don't conservatives have anything to say about the thousands upon thousands of abused and murdered children in the foster care system?
Conservative media doesn't talk about it, conservative politicians don't even seem to acknowledge the existence of the problem, much less solve it.
In fact, many conservative politicians are actively passing bills that would have trans kids taken away from their parents and put into the foster care system, where there is a high chance they will be abused or killed.
That is all on top of being trans, making them much more likely to be the victim of violence.
These bills would tear families apart and ruin the lives of children.
Why don't conservatives do anything to help the thousands of children in foster care and instead focus all their attention on trans kids, less than one percent of the population, and the supposed harm being done to them.
Why make such a small fraction of the population such a central issue, while ignoring massive systemic problems?
What's up with that man?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SerialSnowmanKiller Your rationalizations for your abhorrent values don't make them any less authoritarian.
They very much are issues to people who need abortions and to trans people, just because they aren't issues to ghouls like you and your leaders doesn't change the fact that they are issues.
If conservatives actually cared about the lives of infants then the infant mortality rate and child poverty wouldn't be so high in red states.
You wouldn't have so many leaders implicated in sex crimes involving minors if you actually cared about children.
You're pro birth, not pro life.
Fetuses aren't babies, but we both know you care more about "unborn babies" than you do ones who are born, the policies you support are evidence of that.
As for trans people, literally no one is forcing anything on children, no one is forcing kids to be trans and trans kids aren't given surgery or life altering treatments.
The only people who are forcing kids are conservatives, because they are forcing trans kids to be something they aren't, your bigotry and lack of acceptance is what leads to the high rate of mental illness and suicide in trans youth.
Also no one is forcing you to use preferred prounouns, it's just a matter of respect.
It isn't an infringement on your free speech you snowflake, if you intentionally misgender someone with the intent of causing harm then that is your right, but freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
You're an authoritarian, justifying it by only forcing your authoritarian policies on people you don't like or agree with makes you no less authoritarian.
1
-
@SerialSnowmanKiller I literally already did.
Did you just focus on the insults and ignore everything else?
Conservatives don't care about the lives of babies, look at the infant mortality rates in red states.
They are worse than Cuba.
Conservative leaders have done zero to address this issue or child poverty in their states in the last 20 years.
They don't care.
Restricting abortion is about controlling women's bodies, not saving the lives of the unborn.
Once those kids are born they will be discarded by those in power to die in poverty or a school shooting that your leaders refuse to do anything to prevent, because they serve the NRA and the corporations, not the people.
Your ideas aren't just wrong, some of them aren't even true.
No one is forcing kids to be trans or have life altering treatments, that isn't happening.
Some kids just are trans, that's a reality that is supported by science and history.
They don't get surgery until after they are 18.
Your ideas are based on bigoted lies.
You probably know a lot of Conservatives who listen to and believe Tucker Carlson, who has admitted in court that his show isn't based on facts, it's just opinion and entertainment.
But people you know believe his lies, you probably do as well, whether you get them directly from him or not.
Your party supports taking away rights and controlling people's lives.
First you're coming for abortion and trans rights, as well as banning books and trying to prevent kids from being taught an accurate version of history.
Next it will be gay marriage.
Who knows what other rights you'll try to take away and what other ways you'll seek to control people's lives.
The GOP is an authoritarian party.
Your weak rationalizations don't change the facts.
1
-
@SerialSnowmanKiller Btw, trans kids as young as 10 do know they are trans, this is a proven fact.
No one convinces a kid to be trans, why would they force their kid to be the potential victim of bigotry from people like you?
Trans people are murdered at a higher rate than any other group, because of the bigotry and ignorance of people like you.
Kids at the age of 10 are old enough to decide and they don't get hormone treatment that young, they get puberty blockers, which are perfectly safe and totally reversible.
See, the problem with getting all your information about trans people from conservatives like you do, is that most of the information is incorrect, a straight up lie, and laced in bigotry.
You're ignorant on the subject and have not done your due diligence.
If you want to actually learn about trans people, listen to trans people.
Listen to doctors, scientists and gender specialists.
This stuff has been studied for decades, maybe consider reading some of it.
But seriously, I want to know, do you support Donald Trump?
You seem to think of yourself as an intelligent and logical person, I want to know what mental gymnastics you need to perform to rationalize supporting an obvious fascist.
Or maybe you correctly identify him as such and don't support him, maybe you're one of the few moderate conservatives left in America.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DoodTuber Being trans isn't a mental issue.
You're just factually incorrect and being bigoted.
Minors are only getting mastectomies in very rare circumstances, and it's very context dependant.
There are plenty of checks and balances in place.
If you actually cared about kids you'd focus on a real issue affecting thousands of them, like child brides or the broken foster care system.
But you and other conservatives never talk about either of those issues, because you don't actually care about kids, you care about winning.
You just use kids to try and win the culture war.
Also, the left is not losing the culture war.
The right has almost no culture, you won't ever win the culture war.
You'll only win through fascism, that's the only way the right ever wins.
Culture is created by the oppressed, and that isn't the right.
Very rarely is groundbreaking art made by conservatives, because you don't push boundaries, you like things the way they are, or the way they were.
You're dreaming if you think the right is ever winning the culture war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenhogg6154 A reasonable guy?
He's a con man who surrounds himself with criminals and is one himself.
He has multiple credible accusations of r*pe, sexual assault, including two instances against a minor at an Epstein party.
There is also his close and personal 10 year long relationship with Epstein, a man he knew liked them "on the younger side".
Add all that up and the multiple instances of saying creepy stuff about his own daughter, the chances of him being a sexual predator are astronomical.
You call leftists "groomers" but the republican party is full of them, from Roy Moore, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, and Donald Trump.
But I bet you couldn't name a single leftist with credible accusations against them, certainly not one with any power.
Trump has been impeached twice, said hundreds of insane and stupid things, lied thousands of times and knowingly planned the January 6th insurrection to undermine any democracy America has left.
He gave tax cuts to the rich, his administration repealed and undermined civil rights, gutted the EPA, pulled out of the Paris climate accords and the only world leaders he got along with and didn't make fun of him behind his back were straight up dictators.
He told the Proud boys, a fascist militia, to stand down and stand by.
White supremacists killed someone in Charlottesville and he said there were good people on both sides.
And you don't understand why the left hates him?
You truly are completely clueless about the left huh?
The guy is not reasonable in any sense of the word, the fact that you think he is says a lot about where you are in terms of reality.
He's an obvious narcissist with the mind of a child, a terrible businessman who only likes people who say nice things about him and demanded loyalty from thise in charge of government institutions that are supposed to be impartial and serve the people, not the president.
He's the leader of an authoritarian movement in every sense of the word.
Haha and you think you are in touch with an empirical shared reality?
Oh Steven.
Sigh and Rand Paul, the libertarian moron.
He would be your choice.
No wonder you are so clueless.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenhogg6154 Steven, you can't be bigoted towards trans people and complain about being called a bigot.
No one is forcing you to use the language of gender studies.
Your free speech is not under threat.
You can say whatever you want, but if you say something that is bigoted, you're going to be called a bigot.
That's how free speech works and it is more than fair.
On matters of gender, it would be deliberately ignorant to discount all gender studies for ideological reasons.
That would be like ignoring all of quantum physics because you feel like it and then getting upset when no one agrees with your opinions on the future of space travel.
It's not an infringement on your free speech to point out where you are wrong on the facts.
You can say and believe what you want.
But just like it's been since the beginning of time, there are consequences for what you say.
There are millions of trans people in your country, human beings just like you.
They are discriminated against on a daily basis, one of the most vulnerable marginalized groups.
But their suffering is only theoretical to you, and it seems you'd rather pedantically debate the validity of their identity and existence.
I think all it would take is for you to have this conversation with a trans person, preferably in person, and after that experience you'd probably have different priorities when it comes to this "debate".
I think I understand you just fine.
Most Transphobes are pretty simple, with regards to this topic.
It's good that you want to understand but I find it difficult to believe you are talking entirely in good faith.
You did say Maybe, implying that understanding isn't actually your reason for wanting this conversation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rhymstien3975 I think the statement us correct but not your reasoning.
The US isn't the caretaker of the world, it's the occupier.
It's basically a protection racket, they police the world and get involved often when non one asks them to but it's for the benefit of the empire, not for the protection of others.
It's almost always purely about military positions and business interests.
The US doesn't stop atrocities and war crimes, it often funds and commits them, like with Pinochet for example.
And most of the time the US just makes other places worse, like in Iraq and Afghanistan for example.
They weren't wanted, the countries were even flourishing in the 70s and 80s but it was unacceptable and unhelpful to the US, so they spent billions of dollars and decades blowing the place up and making it worse, like they have done in many other places.
The US likes to cast itself as a noble protector of the "free world" but that's a farce, usually US intervention results in less freedom and more dead people.
It's about money and power.
I think the US should try spending all their money and bringing their troops home, stop pretending to protect the world and stop exploiting it.
But they won't do the later any time soon, they are gearing up to expand outside its borders.
The rest of the world is capable of protecting itself and banding together to repel bad actors if they did try to invade some country.
The US could help, be an ally if necessary, but no one is asking for the US to do it for us. If we are in another world war and the fate of the world requires it, the US can swoop in and be the hero, put that military to good use.
But that hasn't been needed since the 40s and not how the US military has been used since the 50s.
An isolationist US would be interesting to see, but I don't think that will happen. They have spent a lot of money funding aid to balance out all the bad they've done but I think they will stop trying to balance things out by helping anyone and just increase the bad. The US citizens won't be helped and neither will the world, but the ultra rich and corporations will make more money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AndyCan How is yours less arbitrary than ours, when ours is based on material reality and yours is based on a religious text that has potentially been mistranslated.
You'll need to explain that one.
Although I can't believe I need to explain such a basic concept like harm to you.
physical or mental damage or injury : something that causes someone or something to be hurt, broken, made less valuable or successful, etc. No harm was done.
material damage.
have an adverse effect on.
physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.
So, for example, if a large number of religious leaders, say priests, were to molest children that would be an example of harm, and according to people whose morality is based on material reality those priests should be punished, kept away from children and prevented from ever doing something morally reprehensible again.
But a religious organization whose morality is based on arbitrary criteria from a mistranslated text that is thousands of years old would prioritize the hierarchy of the religious institution, and just move those priests to new parishes, obfuscate the molestation and try to sweep it under the rug.
I could come up with dozens more examples, or would be happy to answer any questions if you find the concept of harm based on material reality to still be too confusing and seemingly arbitrary to you.
But first I would like to hear you justify why your criteria is less arbitrary in your mind than ours which is based on material reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisyowell3013 You're conflating sex and gender and clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Trans people are validated by our current understanding of biology, you're just making ignorant assumptions based on outdated information.
You're the one who isn't living in reality, trans people exist, they have always existed and they are the gender they say they are.
Gender is determined in the brain, so their gender identity is mismatched with their biological sex.
Trans women have female brains even though their body is male.
And no, that isn't the only way to help gender dysphoria that's just plain wrong.
That doesn't help gender dysphoria at all, I don't think you even understand what gender dysphoria is, let alone understand it enough to speak confidently about solutions to it.
You don't want to believe trans people exist because they make YOU uncomfortable.
You want to pretend that the world is simple, that gender and sex and biology are simple, but they are complex and not fully understood.
Trans people just need love and acceptance and the same freedom to do what they want with their bodies that everyone else has, to not be discriminated against by systems of power and not be legislated against by evil, ignorant politicians.
You're the one who is uncomfortable with reality, trans people just want to be left alone, you're the one who needs help with feeling comfortable about modern science.
Trans people have always existed, throughout human history.
You can't just not believe in facts because they make you uncomfortable.
Do you believe that anyone is born intersex?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnescobar6 Could you give me the name of the study you are citing, your claim that "a lot" of individuals end up taking their lives 10 - 15 years later not because they weren't affirmed?
Bit of a sus claim to be honest, conservative Transphobes have a nasty habit of citing studies to support their arguments when they haven't actually read the study and it doesn't say what they claim.
You clearly don't understand how gender and transitioning works, because your assertion that he is bringing "sanity" back by saying they aren't what they weren't and all that, just isn't accurate to the trans experience.
Sanity isn't being wrong about the facts in a calm and collected manner.
Conservatives are so emotional, you guys don't seem to care about the facts, only the feelings.
She got flustered and a little upset, therefore she lost the interaction, because he was calm and collected while he played word games and didn't actually address or refute any one of her points.
So that means he won.
It's the same way Ben Shapiro argues, and you guys all think he's smart and logical.
But not a single thing she said was nonsense.
If it sounded like nonsense to you, then you obviously don't know what you are talking about, and maybe you should go learn more about trans issues before trying to act like an authority on them.
Someone explaining how nuclear fusion works would sound like they are speaking nonsense to me, but I don't know shit about that subject, so I would never say they are wrong just because I don't understand what the words they are saying mean in that context.
That's literally what you are doing.
I live with trans people, my siblings are trans, I know more about trans issues than you do, and I'm not your "brother" ass clown.
You don't know shit about the reality of what it's like for trans people.
Don't insinuate I don't care about Trans issues, as if you give a crap.
Josh Hawley is a bigoted, soulless ghoul, who doesn't give a crap that his rhetoric emboldens the many bigots who follow him to attack and terrorize Trans people.
They are murdered at a higher rate than any other group, because of their identity.
Most states Still have a trans panic clause.
Trans and non binary people exist, they always have, throughout human history, and some of them can get pregnant.
Those are just the facts.
Playing bigoted word games to try and erase their existence doesn't change those facts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aliamjon2550 Conservatives think like sociopathic a-holes, if they think at all.
Who will pay for the free healthcare and education?
Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, David Koch, Richard Branson, Oprah Winfrey, Rihanna, and all the other billionaires who abuse this dying system to avoid paying taxes.
A billion dollars is more than any human being could ever need, so every dollar accrued over a billion dollars is taxed at 90%, will pay for everything, healthcare, education, infrastructure, housing all the homeless, and eliminating reliance on fossil fuels.
Alternatively, the United States govt could just halve the military budget and pay for everything I just listed, and still have a bigger military budget than all of their allies combined.
They could do it tomorrow, and if they did, within five years the country would be back on it's feet and the economy would have tripled. It would save America.
But sadly it seems far too many Americans are like you, and they ignorantly believe that halting progress and continuing to do the same thing the country has been doing for decades will somehow fix things, somehow you believe that things were better for everyone in the 80s, or at the very least for people like you, and you want to return to a mythologized image of the Regan era.
Tell me how I'm wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kwad3d10 I largely agree with everything you said about the state of politics.
As for Obama, I do think his greatness was overrated in a material sense, but in a spiritual sense he was truly great, especially to non white Americans.
He's a symbol of real change and progress in America, a black president literally would not have been possible throughout most of the United states history.
It shows how far the country has come in terms of structural racism.
As far as his actual achievements go he improved the healthcare system in many ways, it's still terrible but millions of Americans benefited greatly from the affordable care Act.
It was a hard fight to get passed with the GOP and Mitch McConnell doing everything in their power to stop it.
He also just stabilised the economy and state of affairs he inherited from Bush, much like Clinton did after Bush senior.
They are mostly remembered positively by people who see them as competent, sensible, the kind of president that will do an okay job and be somewhat affable so people don't have to think about politics so much.
Obama being funny, with perfect comedic timing is one of the biggest reasons many people like him.
He was cool, smart, funny, handsome and not afraid to be emotional but also responded with strength to his opposition.
He's kinda the platonic ideal for an imaginary president of Hollywood America.
I think people enjoyed living in a fantasy for a while, everything is gonna be fine, cool black president has got this.
There are a lot of things I dislike and loathe about Obama as a leftist, but I can't deny the charisma and charm.
Id have to google what he actually did, but I think it's mostly fixed a few things and tried not to break anything else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lukelewis9165 Please don't lecture me on "how Capitalism works" like you know better when you clearly don't.
You're not a genius for listening to the other sides arguments buddy, that's what everyone on the Left does. Half of our arguments exist to combat the idiocy of the right as we try to pull you along with us into the future.
Basing everything you believe in on your personal experience is stupid and childish. It doesn't matter if you listen to other people's ideas if the only filter you ever run them through is your "life experience".
Your failure to empathize and analyze anything from any perspective other than your own is precisely why you are a libertarian.
Your ideology is nonsense and I don't think you truly understand what you believe or gave the slightest clue about how to implement it.
Facts are still facts regardless of your experience, or in other words, how you feel about them.
So no, I don't agree with you at all that people flee Socialist countries to go to Capitalist countries.
You haven't provided any reference, because you're just guessing.
It's a stupid question as well, because a glance at the history of the United States shows that any time a country of brown people tries to implement Socialism they are destabilized by the US either directly or indirectly, and they install a Capitalist dictator in charge and then blame the collapsing countries on "Socialism".
While european countries trying to implement the exact same policies as those countries in South America and Asia are soaring ahead of the United States in every respect, other than prison population and unrestricted military spending.
Just Google US interference in foreign affairs.
You'll see a very clear, obvious, unhidden and entirely confirmed history of the United States destabilizing countries such as Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, Brazil, Bolivia, Mexico, Nicaragua, and probably a few other obvious ones I'm forgetting.
Oh yeah, vEneZuElA!
Please google venezuela and the United States.
Not to mention the decades of acts of terror committed on the Middle east for oil and international power.
Capitalism sucks bro, it's rotten to the core, as rotten as your failed divided states of america.
That's an undeniable fact, not a matter of disagreement.
I'm right and you're wrong, the facts clearly prove this.
I'm happy to keep talking to you if you insist on debating reality, once we've both had some rest.
I'll even send you some links, like homework back in highschool.
But I would appreciate if you brushed up on the basics first, like human history and how the past influences the present.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lukelewis9165 Oh also, vietnam is only complicated because you tried to make it sound complicated.
What happened was a country of non white people wanted to be communist and the United States and their white allies the french didn't want that, especially since the cold war was still fresh in everyone's minds.
They couldn't have communism rising up so they tried and failed to put it down.
Vietnam has recovered from the genocides committed by the American superpower and is now the closest thing to a functioning communist society that the US will allow to exist.
Not complicated at all, quite simple in fact.
That's why I brought vietnam up, because it proves my point.
Not only that Communism works, but that it can defeat fascism and imperialism (which is just postmodern fascism) and thrive in the 21st century.
Like I said at the start. All of the facts are on my side.
You cannot win this argument based on the facts.
Capitalism is exploitative and it destroys itself.
Every five to seven years since the inception of america there has been an economic crash. Sometimes it's small and some people don't notice it. Sometimes it's big and we all remember it. But like clockwork, every five to seven years. The solution is always some form of Socialism, whether it's for the people, like after the great depression, or for the Corporations, like the bank bail outs of 2008.
How severe the crash determines how severe the Socialism is to fix it.
Every.
Single.
Time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lukelewis9165 Dude, as I've already explained, it's impossible to have proper socialism when most of the wealth and power in the world is controlled by conservative capitalists.
The USSR was stronger than the US until WW2, it didn't fall because of it being an inherently flawed system, it collapsed because they ran out of resources during the war and following the war they were more interested in power than people.
If they didn't have to beat the germans for you then they would have lasted longer. But as I already stated, that is state capitalism not socialism. More akin to China today than anything else. A country whose state capitalism is doing quite well, the benefits of which are not being passed on to the people as they do in a more socialist country.
I'm not advocating for the US to turn into the soviet union overnight, You're the only one bringing them up. You can't go from capitalism to socialism without a mixed economy as a transition period. I just want the US to start catching up with the rest of humanity.
I want the US to enact basic socialist policies like The New Deal, and declare and provide healthcare, food and housing as a basic human right. As well as nationalising the internet and making it accessible to everyone. It belongs to everyone, and we all benefit from equal access.
Finland has already ended homelessness and most of the developed world has healthcare as a human right.
If the US implemented just one of these policies it would change the lives of millions of working class people, and inspire other countries to do the same.
It can't happen all at once.
I'm simply talking about taking those first steps into a mixed economy that is obviously superior.
Once we stop letting other human beings stare to death despite already having enough resources to house and feed them currently, and maybe stop killing each other for profit. Then we can talk about proper socialism. A mixed economy first.
YOu catch up and do healthcare, hopefully New Zealand and other countries can follow Finlands lead and end homelessness. Then we can all move onto food after that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lukelewis9165 I've already explained my position very clearly, and explained who would pay for it. So I'm not going to answer stupid questions I already answered.
You're obviously someone who gets very hung up on dictionary definitions of words, not surprising since all of your political knowledge is entirely theoretical.
The USSR was state Capitalist, not full Socialism, despite the name. The Nazis also had Socialist in their name, but they were still fascists who killed the real Socialists once they took power.
The United States calls itself a Democracy when it clearly isn't.
I've grown quite tired of talking to you because you clearly only take in information you want and ignore the rest.
You have a terrible understanding of Capitalism and Socialism but I'm not your teacher, and frankly, I think you're unreachable.
I hope you have a good life and that believing in the fairy tale of the free market will keep you happy.
I'm no longer interested in having political discourse with you because you don't listen and think you're the best educated on these subjects when you're not.
Also wrong, the government doesn't decide the value of labour under Socialism, the workers do. There ones who actually create the wealth and value, through their labour.
I would recommend you actually read some Socialist and communist Theory and watch those videos on American history.
I doubt you will though.
Good day libertarian luke.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bob-l4q6f Are you joking?
I was born in a country founded on colonialism and I have never left, not even on holiday.
My current rightwing government is trying to double down on our colonial history and ruin the country rather than decolonizing and fixing the country.
You don't know what you are talking about bud.
You obviously don't even know what decolonization means, and you still haven't answered the question of whether you think colonialism is wrong.
It is by the way, it's obviously evil.
It belongs in the 20th century along with slavery and the busted economic system it came along with, capitalism.
But you instead tried to deflect it onto me and lie about 🇮🇱 not doing any, when they are a proudly colonial nation who is very open about their colonial history and future plans to expand their borders further into other countries in the region, which I guess is gives me your answer to that question in the most dishonest way possible.
Palestinians are indigenous to the land, they are being colonized by a country created in 1948 on land they had lived on for generations.
You just quite literally don't actually know what indigenous means and have obviously never once looked it up or learnt about colonialism from an indigenous perspective.
The indigenous communities of the world, as in the ones colonized by Europeans, universally stand with Palestine.
And I do as well.
You stand with the United states and the other colonial powers, including the one in question which is proudly colonial and engaging in well documented colonial violence on a weekly basis, and you're lying and pretending they are indigenous.
Hypocrite much?
1
-
@Bob-l4q6f Are you joking?
I was born in a country founded on colonialism and I have never left, not even on holiday.
My current rightwing government is trying to double down on our colonial history and ruin the country rather than decolonizing and fixing the country.
You don't know what you are talking about bud.
You obviously don't even know what decolonization means, and you still haven't answered the question of whether you think colonialism is wrong.
It is by the way, it's obviously evil.
It belongs in the 20th century along with slavery and the busted economic system it came along with, capitalism.
But you instead tried to deflect it onto me and lie about 🇮🇱 not doing any, when they are a proudly colonial nation who is very open about their colonial history and future plans to expand their borders further into other countries in the region, which I guess is gives me your answer to that question in the most dishonest way possible.
Palestinians are indigenous to the land, they are being colonized by a country created in 1948 on land they had lived on for generations.
You just quite literally don't actually know what indigenous means and have obviously never once looked it up or learnt about colonialism from an indigenous perspective.
The indigenous communities of the world, as in the ones colonized by Europeans, universally stand with Palestine.
And I do as well.
You stand with the United states and the other colonial powers, including the one in question which is proudly colonial and engaging in well documented colonial violence on a weekly basis, and you're lying and pretending they are indigenous.
Hypocrite much?
1
-
@Bob-l4q6f Are you joking?
I was born in a country founded on colonialism and I have never left, not even on holiday.
My current rightwing government is trying to double down on our colonial history and ruin the country rather than decolonizing and fixing the country.
You don't know what you are talking about bud.
You obviously don't even know what decolonization means, and you still haven't answered the question of whether you think colonialism is wrong.
It is by the way, it's obviously evil.
It belongs in the 20th century along with slavery and the busted economic system it came along with, capitalism.
But you instead tried to deflect it onto me and lie about 🇮🇱 not doing any, when they are a proudly colonial nation who is very open about their colonial history and future plans to expand their borders further into other countries in the region, which I guess is gives me your answer to that question in the most dishonest way possible.
🇸🇩's are indigenous to the land, they are being colonized by a country created in 1948 on land they had lived on for generations.
You just quite literally don't actually know what indigenous means and have obviously never once looked it up or learnt about colonialism from an indigenous perspective.
The indigenous communities of the world, as in the ones colonized by Europeans, universally stand with 🇸🇩.
And I do as well.
You stand with the United states and the other colonial powers, including the one in question which is proudly colonial and engaging in well documented colonial violence on a weekly basis, and you're lying and pretending they are indigenous.
Hypocrite much?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bob-l4q6f So you are refusing to answer and continue to deflect.
Like a coward.
I'm not being defamatory to 🇮🇱 I'm asking you to justify their col--onial actions, their col--0nial allies and their crimes and illegal settlements in foreign countries.
You refuse to answer and continue to push this BS narrative that they are righteous, innocent and indigenous when they are open about being a col--0nial country with col--0nial goals of expansion in the future and are only supported by other col--0nial countries or right wing authoritarian governments.
The indigenous people of the world stand against them, hol--0caust survivors and scholars like Raz Segal stand against them.
You can't even acknowledge or refute any of these realities or even attempt a counter argument, you ignore, deflect, accuse, gaslight and make personal attacks and insinuations because your narrative is so weak it cannot be defended with good faith arguments, it's such an obviously false narrative.
Oppressed people around the world are with 🇸🇩.
Oppressors are with 🇮🇱
With your dishonesty and constant deflection and pivoting, as well as the questions you have conspicuously refused to answer you have shown me which one you are, who you side with.
You're on the wrong side of history and history has turned.
No one is buying your BS narrative that you've utterly failed to substantiate or defend, especially not one so glaringly contradicted by the actions and allies of the country in question.
I didn't waste my time, I made several arguments you were too afraid to acknowledge or refute.
Womp womp.
1
-
@Bob-l4q6f So you are refusing to answer and continue to deflect.
Like a C O W A RD
I'm not being defamatory to 🇮🇱 I'm asking you to justify their col--onial actions, their col--0nial allies and their crimes and illegal settlements in foreign countries.
You refuse to answer and continue to push this b.s. narrative that they are righteous, innocent and indigenous when they are open about being a col--0nial country with col--0nial goals of expansion in the future and are only supported by other col--0nial countries or right wing authoritarian governments.
The indigenous people of the world stand against them, hol--0caust survivors and scholars like Raz Segal stand against them.
You can't even acknowledge or refute any of these realities or even attempt a counter argument, you ignore, deflect, accuse, gaslight and make personal attacks and insinuations because your narrative is so weak it cannot be defended with good faith arguments, it's such an obviously false narrative.
Oppressed people around the world are with 🇸🇩.
Oppressors are with 🇮🇱
With your dishonesty and constant deflection and pivoting, as well as the questions you have conspicuously refused to answer you have shown me which one you are, who you side with.
You're on the wrong side of history and history has turned.
No one is buying your b.s. narrative that you've utterly failed to substantiate or defend, especially not one so glaringly contradicted by the actions and allies of the country in question.
I didn't waste my time, I made several arguments you were too afraid to acknowledge or refute.
Womp womp.
1
-
1
-
@Bob-l4q6f The indigenous people of the world stand against them, hol--0caust survivors and scholars like Raz Segal stand against them.
You can't even acknowledge or refute any of these realities or even attempt a counter argument, you ignore, deflect, accuse, gaslight and make personal attacks and insinuations because your narrative is so weak it cannot be defended with good faith arguments, it's such an obviously false narrative.
Oppressed people around the world are with 🇸🇩.
Oppressors are with 🇮🇱
With your dishonesty and constant deflection and pivoting, as well as the questions you have conspicuously refused to answer you have shown me which one you are, who you side with.
You're on the wrong side of history and history has turned.
No one is buying your b.s. narrative that you've utterly failed to substantiate or defend, especially not one so glaringly contradicted by the actions and allies of the country in question.
I didn't waste my time, I made several arguments you were too afraid to acknowledge or refute.
Womp womp
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stormy2143 Yes, the United States socialist like war economy certainly gave them an economic boom for a few decades, and with almost every country in Europe devasted by the war but the United States was left essentially untouched put them in the position of being the only remaining superpower.
The USSR still have them a run for their money for the next few decades, despite half of their countries infrastructure being destroyed in the process of defeating the Germans during the war.
That economic boom didn't last though, it never does, because capitalism is an unstable and inefficient system, there's always a boom and bust cycle.
Since the 80s the United States has been on a steady decline.
That period of time isn't proof that capitalism can be successful, but that war economies are, especially when the war is being fought in the other side of the world.
Heck, that's almost more of an argument for the benefits of socialism, because the United States didn't look like a free market Capitalist country during the war.
So capitalism can't be successful without a period of socialism to prop it up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@futurewarlord99 Also no, efficiency is not the goal of Capitalist Industry, profit is.
Efficiency is only a goal when it serves to increase profits, but it doesn't always.
I think my example of food distribution made that pretty clear.
I have been talking about industry being sustainable anyway, efficiency isn't the main point, and you're the one who brought it up.
Industry is unsustainable and that is the main issue.
I think a socialist government has a better chance of distributing food based on need on account of a Socialist governments priorities being the wellbeing of the people, evidenced by the quality of life improving in every country that elects a socialist government, Burkina Faso, Cuba, Vietnam, Russia. Food security is generally better in Socialist countries than in Capitalist ones.
A Capitalist neoliberal government will never eliminate world hunger because it isn't trying to, after 60 years of global capitalism that should be obvious. The goals of a neoliberal government is to serve corporate interests and let the free market solve any societal problems, under the misguided belief that valuing profit over all else will lead to economic prosperity for everyone.
But it quite obviously hasn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Elnegro.. Right, so you're a conservative who believes that teachers and leftists are a big threat to kids, is that it?
The don't say gay bill is specifically targeting queer issues, that was it's goal, it's been successful.
Teachers are afraid to even tell kids about the reality that gay people exist, because they are afraid of being sued by unhinged conservative parents emboldened by fascist GOP politicians.
Gay people are being specifically targeted by the GOP, what I'm saying isn't false, and you know it.
Thing is catholic priests and child marriage are far bigger problems facing kids today and putting them in danger, but your conservative politicians are completely silent on those issues while fabricating a moral panic about drag queens, who are not a proven danger to kids.
You guys don't actually care about protecting children, you're hypocrites.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ryanhubbard1885
Ah, the classic bad faith argument conservatives roll out when they are losing an argument.
Buddy, I'm poor myself, I don't have anything spare to give to the poor, I occasionally give homeless people change when I have it after buying food.
Democrats are not progressives, and I'm not a Democrat, I'm a leftist & there isn't a leftwing party in the United states since they made it illegal to be a member of the communist or socialist party back in the day.
Democrats have no interest or courage in actually fixing things in places like San Francisco, they could choose to invest a few million or billion in reducing poverty and long term solutions for preventing poverty and crime, but most democrats are just interested in keeping their seats and being reelected, and all they need to do is be slightly more progressive than the GOP, which isn't difficult since the GOP is literally the party of the 3 K's and Qanon these days.
Systemic problems, like poverty, require systemic solutions.
I support progressive systemic solutions, I'm not a hypocrite for not trying to solve a systemic problem as an individual by giving away all my money to the poor, that's such a bad faith argument.
But it probably makes sense to you, the concept of systemic solutions is probably completely over your head and you don't have a clue what I'm talking about huh?
1
-
1
-
@ryanhubbard1885 Do you have a response to this comment?
@ryanhubbard1885
Ah, the classic bad faith argument conservatives roll out when they are losing an argument.
Buddy, I'm poor myself, I don't have anything spare to give to the poor, I occasionally give homeless people change when I have it after buying food.
Democrats are not progressives, and I'm not a Democrat, I'm a leftist & there isn't a leftwing party in the United states since they made it illegal to be a member of the communist or socialist party back in the day.
Democrats have no interest or courage in actually fixing things in places like San Francisco, they could choose to invest a few million or billion in reducing poverty and long term solutions for preventing poverty and crime, but most democrats are just interested in keeping their seats and being reelected, and all they need to do is be slightly more progressive than the GOP, which isn't difficult since the GOP is literally the party of the 3 K's and Qanon these days.
Systemic problems, like poverty, require systemic solutions.
I support progressive systemic solutions, I'm not a hypocrite for not trying to solve a systemic problem as an individual by giving away all my money to the poor, that's such a bad faith argument.
But it probably makes sense to you, the concept of systemic solutions is probably completely over your head and you don't have a clue what I'm talking about huh?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BrianStevens-n2z 😂 Oh wow, you're serious.
You actually believe Elon taught himself to build rockets.
You must still be a teenager or something.
The man spends his days tweeting, playing videogames and creating a hostile work environment, he didn't build those rockets dude, the scientists and engineers who work for him did.
Elon isn't a smart businessman, he's a decent snake oil salesman and has succeeded in spite of his own incompetence, mostly by stealing other people's companies and taking credit for other people's work.
He's a trust fund kid who was born rich, that's it.
And he's now a divorced Absentee father turned reactionary troll who is addicted to Twitter, a company he vastly overpaid for and didn't want to buy and was forced to, which he's now sueing the lawyers who forced him to buy it, and he's now running that company into the ground.
He's literally the most famous loser in the world.
IQ tests aren't a real measure of intelligence, they are debunked pseudoscience.
You need to get better heroes kid, and improve your critical thinking skills.
Simping for Elon isn't going to impress anyone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SebastianMorrow No it isn't strange Dipsh*t, because doing a G No cide isn't their only goal, they also want to try and justify it in front of the world and steal the land and try and act like they were the good guys in this.
Obviously they could use their full military might but then the rest of the world would have no choice but to condemn them and might go to war with them.
The United states did a G No cide in the Native Americans but they didn't use their full military might either, because logically there are other factors to consider.
The population increasing is irrelevant, the result do not matter, their methods and intentions are what make it apply.
They are literally meeting the definition of it, I don't know why that is so hard for you to understand.
The destruction of a specific group IN PART counts, did you miss that part of the description?
This "conflict " absolutely DOES meet the requirements, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
You aren't qualified to make that judgement, you're just some ignorant schmuck online who doesn't care about war crimes or the loss of innocent life.
Two of the most respected humanitarian organizations in the world think it applies, they are experts on the word, you are not.
They are targeting civilians, destroying civilian structures, carpet bombed neighborhoods leveling them, making areas completely unliveable, slaughtering children, stealing land, selling oil rights to that stolen land and had their plans leaked of their intentions to move the survivors to Egypt.
It couldn't be more obvious to the people who are qualified to judge whether the word does or doesn't apply and it couldn't be more obvious to people who are paying attention and who care.
You are obviously not one of those people, maybe you share the views of the IDF and don't even see them as human beings.
1
-
@SebastianMorrow A week into Israel’s war on Gaza, 800 eminent scholars and practitioners of law sounded the alarm about an imminent G n0 cide in the territory. What made this warning both powerful and chilling was that so many legal experts came to this sombre conclusion together. It is not a claim that can be made easily.
Since that letter was released, the situation in Gaza has only gotten worse. The death toll has passed 11,000, while some 2,650 individuals, including approximately 1,400 children, are reported missing, potentially trapped or deceased beneath the rubble. Tens of thousands of wounded are overwhelmingly struggling medical facilities. The humanitarian situation has reached horrific levels, compounded by the lack of food, water, fuel and electricity.
To understand what is transpiring in Gaza, we must turn to the key legal frameworks that define G n0 cide: Article 6 of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court and Article 2 of the G n0 cide Convention.
According to these documents, "the G word" involves acts committed with the specific intent to destroy, either in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These acts encompass killing members of the group, causing them serious harm, and imposing conditions of life aimed at physical destruction of the group in whole or in part, among other underlying acts. Notably, the people targeted can be a geographically limited part of the group.
Gaza’s devastating reality mirrors these components of genocide. Despite claiming to target only Hamas, Israel is engaged in an all-out assault on the whole population of Gaza. In just the first week of its relentless assault, it dropped more than 6,000 bombs on the Strip – nearly as many as the United States used in Afghanistan in a full year.
Using high-impact munitions in one of the most densely populated places in the world inevitably leads to a high death toll among civilians, as we have witnessed already in Gaza. In a month, the Israeli bombardment has killed more than 4,400 children and 2,900 women, with many of the men in these horrific statistics also non-combatants.
The Israeli army has also dropped any pretence to “precision strikes”, as its spokesperson Daniel Hagari said its emphasis is “on damage and not accuracy”.
It has also mass-targeted civilian buildings, including hospitals and schools sheltering the displaced. It has bombed residential buildings, wiping out whole families from the population registrar; more than 45 percent of homes were destroyed or damaged, many of them in the supposed “safe areas” of the south where the Israeli army had instructed Palestinians to evacuate to.
This mass killing of civilians is accompanied by the imposition of life conditions aimed clearly at the physical destruction of the Palestinian people. Israel has put Gaza under complete siege, with “no electricity, no food, no water, no gas”, as declared by Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.
Israel’s bombing of hospitals, the targeting of their solar panels and the blocking of fuel deliveries indicate an intent to prevent Palestinians from accessing life-saving healthcare. More than one-third of hospitals and two-thirds of primary healthcare in Gaza have already shut down.
The Israeli refusal to allow adequate amounts of much-needed humanitarian aid – including food and water – indicates it is willing to allow the Palestinian population to succumb to starvation and disease.
Israeli government and military officials have also verbalised their G n0 cidal intent towards the Palestinian people. On October 9, when announcing the full blockade, Gallant described the 2.3 million people in Gaza as “human animals”. On October 29, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used Judaic scripture to justify the killing of Palestinians. “You must remember what Amalek did to you, says our Holy Bible,” he said, quoting a verse that goes on to say: “Now go and smite Amalek … kill both man and woman, infant.”
Hmmmm, who should I believe?
The experts on the subject who have studied the information we have or some guy in the comment section who is just repeating propaganda?
I don't think you are a credible source on this one Buddy.
1
-
1
-
@SebastianMorrow No response to this?
A week into Israel’s war on Gaza, 800 eminent scholars and practitioners of law sounded the alarm about an imminent G n0 cide in the territory. What made this warning both powerful and chilling was that so many legal experts came to this sombre conclusion together. It is not a claim that can be made easily.
Since that letter was released, the situation in Gaza has only gotten worse. The death toll has passed 11,000, while some 2,650 individuals, including approximately 1,400 children, are reported missing, potentially trapped or deceased beneath the rubble. Tens of thousands of wounded are overwhelmingly struggling medical facilities. The humanitarian situation has reached horrific levels, compounded by the lack of food, water, fuel and electricity.
To understand what is transpiring in Gaza, we must turn to the key legal frameworks that define G n0 cide: Article 6 of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court and Article 2 of the G n0 cide Convention.
According to these documents, "the G word" involves acts committed with the specific intent to destroy, either in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These acts encompass killing members of the group, causing them serious harm, and imposing conditions of life aimed at physical destruction of the group in whole or in part, among other underlying acts. Notably, the people targeted can be a geographically limited part of the group.
Gaza’s devastating reality mirrors these components of genocide. Despite claiming to target only Hamas, Israel is engaged in an all-out assault on the whole population of Gaza. In just the first week of its relentless assault, it dropped more than 6,000 bombs on the Strip – nearly as many as the United States used in Afghanistan in a full year.
Using high-impact munitions in one of the most densely populated places in the world inevitably leads to a high death toll among civilians, as we have witnessed already in Gaza. In a month, the Israeli bombardment has killed more than 4,400 children and 2,900 women, with many of the men in these horrific statistics also non-combatants.
The Israeli army has also dropped any pretence to “precision strikes”, as its spokesperson Daniel Hagari said its emphasis is “on damage and not accuracy”.
It has also mass-targeted civilian buildings, including hospitals and schools sheltering the displaced. It has bombed residential buildings, wiping out whole families from the population registrar; more than 45 percent of homes were destroyed or damaged, many of them in the supposed “safe areas” of the south where the Israeli army had instructed Palestinians to evacuate to.
This mass killing of civilians is accompanied by the imposition of life conditions aimed clearly at the physical destruction of the Palestinian people. Israel has put Gaza under complete siege, with “no electricity, no food, no water, no gas”, as declared by Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.
Israel’s bombing of hospitals, the targeting of their solar panels and the blocking of fuel deliveries indicate an intent to prevent Palestinians from accessing life-saving healthcare. More than one-third of hospitals and two-thirds of primary healthcare in Gaza have already shut down.
The Israeli refusal to allow adequate amounts of much-needed humanitarian aid – including food and water – indicates it is willing to allow the Palestinian population to succumb to starvation and disease.
Israeli government and military officials have also verbalised their G n0 cidal intent towards the Palestinian people. On October 9, when announcing the full blockade, Gallant described the 2.3 million people in Gaza as “human animals”. On October 29, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used Judaic scripture to justify the killing of Palestinians. “You must remember what Amalek did to you, says our Holy Bible,” he said, quoting a verse that goes on to say: “Now go and smite Amalek … kill both man and woman, infant.”
Hmmmm, who should I believe?
The experts on the subject who have studied the information we have or some guy in the comment section who is just repeating propaganda?
I don't think you are a credible source on this one Buddy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@howardpalys6929 Unfortunately buddy, my point has been made, you just described a systems that dozens of other countries already have, including mine, and are not far left.
All of those things, healthcare especially, have made these countries objectively better places to live for regular people than the United States.
The wait times are usually longer in the United States and the medical debt is responsible for 60% of bankruptcies, which is insane.
It's a stupid and frankly dystopian problem only present in your underdeveloped right wing country.
You are not a moderate if you think any of those things are radical far left, they aren't.
Portugal has shown immense success with their legalization of drugs, there are less drug users and less overdoses per Capita than the United States by a lot.
You're not a centrist, you're a conservatives with commitment issues who is totally ignorant of the world outside his backwards country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anthonyv7910 That's a pretty lackluster summary of the Soviet union, ignoring all nuance of the countries development and history. Half the country was literally destroyed fighting and defeating the Nazis, that's like if the United States had lost the entire east coast and most of the middle of the country. That country came out of WW2 as the only remaining superpower, and look at the state of them now, The United States is a crumbling travesty. Imagine what they would look like now if half the country had been destroyed and they spent the next decades rebuilding.
The Soviet union still managed to be the first nation to be space faring with only half a countries infrastructure and production, whilst supporting other developing socialist countries.
The USSR failed for a myriad of reasons, but it wasn't because socialism is an ineffective system.
You say you don't see long term historical evidence that socialism works.
Well I would ask firstly, how are you defining what "works"? What is your criteria for measuring success that you feel that socialist countries don't live up to?
Secondly, do you know the history of every country that has tried Socialism?
If not, how could you say there is little historical evidence that it works or doesn't if you haven't even seen most of the evidence?
Do you know about Burkina Faso under Thomas Sankara?
What about Chile before the United States funded a coup and installed and supported a dictator to undo all the good if the previous socialist administration?
Honestly, I think most people who think socialism doesn't work are mostly just ignorant of the history of Socialist countries.
If you are interested I would happily share some resources on how Socialist countries have generally outperformed Capitalist ones on every standard of living.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheNorthHawk I'm from New Zealand bro, I don't see any difference between China and the United States, both are totalitarian governments doing evil, honestly don't think China even comes close.
The United States has a proven track record of making the world worse as a hegemonic power, at least China has managed to meaningfully reduce poverty in their country.
I don't agree with a lot of what they do but I also don't think they have plans for invading the rest of the world, pretty sure their military exists primarily as a deterrence for the warmongering imperialist oligarchy that won't shut up about how it's number one.
I'm not worried about China taking over the world, I hope someone pressures them into not committing more human rights abuses.
That being said, even China opposes Israels apartheid state, The United States is the only country in the United Nations to support them, other than Saudi Arabia.
Yikes.
I don't know anything about the belt and road initiative, could you recommend anything covering it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sandyunderpants4376 uh no, not every American who wants that gets that for free, what are you talking about?
Homelessness is on the rise, as are levels of malnutrition and child poverty.
My problem with the current leadership is they are incompetent and spineless, they won't fix any problems and won't stand up to the increasingly fascistic GOP.
But they are happy to keep giving the military hundreds of billions of dollars every year instead of using just 20 billion to end homelessness permanently.
There are so many things an actual left wing party could address in America, getting money out of politics, ending the war on drugs, mass incarceration and the prison industrial complex.
Better funding for education and environmentalism, Defunding the police and putting the money into community services that actually help people and save and improve lives.
Breaking up corporate monopolies, taxing billionaires and big pharma, passing single payer healthcare and medicare for all.
Funding a public transportation system for the 21st century.
There is so much a left wing government could do in power and America actually has the money to do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fuck4317 You know when I say socialism I don't mean the USSR, which seems to be the entirety of your understanding of what socialism is.
That was one socialist experiment.
I don't think we should recreate it.
We should taje what works and leave what doesn't.
Gulags are not an essential fixture of a socialist society, you don't need to have gulags and I'm very much suggesting we don't.
As for socialist countries that aren't shit holes, well the closest thing we have to socialist states are places like Vietnam, Cuba and Finland, Norway, Sweden. These places aren't shit holes and are outperforming purely capitalist countries in most regards, especially the United States, which is one of the biggest global shit holes of inequality.
There shouldn't be any billionaires, that amount of money is only accumulated through exploitation.
With a focus on workers rights, an aggressive wealth tax and strong social welfare state and redistribution there wouldn't be any billionaires. No one deserves a billion dollars.
Pretending billionaires are just a fact of life and that they would be present in a socialist government is unfounded and stupid.
The goal is to take the power out of the hands of the capitalists and put it in the hands of the people, who elect a government that represents them and ensures that no one has the means of exploiting workers and becoming a billionaire.
Mind me asking how old you are?
You seem to have a very cold war understanding of economics and what socialism is, I'm trying to talk about the future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jacktoth-egeto45 Your describing governments that were communist in name only, ideology is defined through action, not words.
Stalin wasn't a communist, his regime is often referred to as Stalinist for this exact reason.
He payed some lip service to communism while imposing authoritarian state capitalism on his people.
Communism is a moneyless, classless, stateless society.
It's an ideal that is to be strived for, something to be achieved over hundreds of years.
Stalin had no interest in communism, he wanted power.
I definitely disagree that they did worse than the Nazis, the death toll of the USSR is wildly exaggerated and has been repeatedly debunked.
Capitalism has a higher death toll than any state calling itself communist.
Communism has never been achieved, not even close, so you can't say that it doesn't work.
Communism is democratic by design, if it isn't democratic, it isn't communism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SadToffee I never claimed that shifting power to the government eradicates the ability for people to be evil, not the point I was making. The point is that we as individuals have no power over private companies, who are even more likely to do evil than the government, because they are driven by profit alone, they don't even have to pretend they care about the public good.
I think you're incredibly naive if you believe that voting with our wallets could have ever worked, you can't reform capitalism.
The system is the problem, revolution is necessary.
Reforms can be undone, if we leave the Capitalists in power then they will always try to get things back to where they are now.
I don't want the power in the hands of the government or the corporations, I want the power in our hands.
The workers are the most essential part of our society, government is supposed to work for us, we don't work for 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
-
@UncleTravelingMatt2 So do you just lump all mental disorders in the same basket?
How very scientific of you.
I guess Kleptomania is similar to OCD because they both fall under the umbrella of "mental disorder" which contains hundreds of different disorders.
I'll quote an article for you.
This year is on pace to see more legislation targeting transgender youth than any prior year, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
Some measures take issue with LGBTQ+ participation in high school and college competitive sports — 140 of the bills introduced would deny them medical care for gender transitions and impose limits on which bathroom they may use. Overall, more than 300 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been proposed in 2022, according to the advocacy group's tracker.
"Some of our research has shown that as many as 85% of trans youth say that they are watching these debates over their identity play out," Ames said. "The direct results of these bills when they pass are to take away things that we know are correlated with increased mental health and decreased suicide risk: sports team participation, seeing yourself represented in a classroom, being accepted by your parents and your healthcare professionals. These are all associated with significantly lower odds of attempting suicide."
The policies show a trend in Republican legislatures to push what they see as an animating issue for their base, in the face of outrage from LGBTQ+ groups and vetoes by some Republican governors.
Alabama has passed the most "anti-transgender" legislative package in history, Oakley said.
Its main bill, "The Alabama Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act," prohibits the use of puberty blockers or any medical procedure for those under 19 years old that is related to changing gender. The bill also requires teachers and school employees to inform parents if a student's "perception of his or her gender or sex is consistent with the minor's sex"
The bill makes it a felony — with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years — for a doctor to perform surgery or prescribe any medication for a gender transition.
"It is not permissible for a legislature or governor to be making law that discriminates against a very small group, very vulnerable group of people, simply because they don't like them," Oakley said, referencing HRC's legal challenge to Alabama's bill. "That's a violation of equal protection of the law."
Bills that restrict healthcare for trans youth, similar to Alabama's, have been introduced in at least 19 states, according to the ACLU. The Arkansas Legislature passed a similar law in 2021, but it was overturned by a federal court.
Damn, a quick Google search is all it would take to cure your ignorance.
If only you weren't so intellectually lazy, a moral coward who would rather start with a conclusion and work backwards to prove it rather than just be open minded and learn something new.
I can't wait to see how you weasel out of this one.
Hundreds of anti trans bills passed each of the past few years, so you couldn't be more incorrect about conservatives simply "respectfully disagreeing".
You can't respectfully deny someone their humanity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CSPORTPDX I don't know who that quote is from, but I just skipped over a dozen times Trump said something far worse that led to actual violence, pretty weak effort dude.
August 19, 2015: Two Boston brothers invoked Trump when they were arrested for urinating on a homeless man and beating him with a metal pipe. While in custody, one of the brothers told the police, “Trump was right. All of these illegals need to be deported.” The 58-year-old Mexican American they assaulted was a permanent US resident.
Multiple studies released between 2017 and 2019 showed how hate crimes reached a high during the first two years of Trump’s presidency. A report from the FBI found that hate crimes, especially against Muslims, increased by 5 percent in 2016 and were up 17 percent in 2017; in 2018, hate crimes reached a 16-year high, with a significant rise in violence against Latinos.
According to a 2019 report, counties that hosted a rally with Trump as a headliner experienced a 226 percent increase in hate crimes. The report’s authors noted: “Trump’s rhetoric may encourage hate crimes.” At the middle point of his term, when confronted with opportunities to condemn white supremacy and attempt to unify the country, Trump declined to do so.
Just google "trump supporters commit hate crimes" and you'll find at least 20 instances of this happening.
There isn't anything remotely comparable from the supporters of other candidates, you'd be lucky to find a single case, certain not dozens.
You don't have a leg to stand on here dude.
Be a man and accept that you were wrong and that your leader emboldened racists and hate crimes.
Or deny it like a lying coward, just like that man you call a legend who bragged about sexual assault and then became president.
I've lost any faith in you behaving like a decent and honest human being, but I still like to give you the option of the benefit of the doubt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CSPORTPDX It does exist, you're just too much of a coward to look for it, and no reasonable person would ask someone to cite 20 instances of anything happening, you think I should spend half an hour copy and pasting Trump quotes that you'll just ignore or dismiss anyway?
I'm 27, and you're detached from reality.
You constantly just ignore facts that you don't like or that reflect poorly on your dear leader, which is a lot because he says and does a lot of things that reflect poorly on him.
He has explicitly called for violence many times at rallys.
You're wrong, he has violent racists who support him and you know it.
You're a lying coward, I stopped taking you seriously ages ago because you clearly are pathologicaly incapable of admitting fault it acknowledging anything that contradicts your worldview.
I don't think you even know how to have an honest conversation with another human being anymore, you're suffering from cognitive dissonance.
A term you probably wouldn't even understand even if you were brave enough to google it's definition.
You're a sad and pathetic person just like the loser president you're worshipping, and the saddest part is that Trump would despise you, like he does all poor or unimportant people.
He only loves it when you believe everything he says.
It's tragic that you still do.
I would never be so blindly sycophantic for any leader, and I wouldn't deny reality or their faults when presented with facts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Finalblade2007 that doesn't really make any sense but no one has ever accused libertarians who support capitalism of being smart.
Voting with your dollar is a myth, you can't boycott corporations if we literally hand them all the power, which is what you are suggesting.
You want to take away almost all of the governments power but still want them to be powerful enough to uphold the constitution?
That's a fantasy, corporations don't care about the constitutional, half the government doesn't care about constitutional rights.
Corporations don't fall to money like every other citizen, that's literally never happened once.
What you are suggesting doesn't make any rational Sense.
Government is the problem, but we also need government to protect our rights, and we aren't going to use the government to do anything about corporations, we are just going to boycott them 😂
Yeah, that will totally work against Amazon and other billion dollar corporations, it's not like people need to eat or anything, we can just boycott the corporations we hand power to.
Sorry bud, but libertarianism that still supports capitalism is just an incoherent ideology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sovietsandvich8443 No I just think that because we have enough resources to meet everyone's basic needs that our goal should be to Meet everyone's basic needs, not to maximize profits. Instead we let people buy houses they don't need that just sit empty while housing prices go up, for profit prisons keep slavery alive and well in America, essential medication is sold for profit, and the oil industry is destroying out planet while lobbying against cleaner alternatives. Shit is fucked and people are dying but you praise business owners for taking risks? What risks? Bezos didn't risk his life to get Amazon off the ground, he took a loan from Rich parents and got lucky with a good idea that destroyed millions of small businesses by being faster and cheaper than any of them, just how all Monopolies do. Minimum wage hasn't gone up in years, not to mention we know what a living wage is but we still feel it's okay to pay someone the arbitrary bare minimum, which is NOT enough to live well and sometimes not at all. It would be impossible for a minimum wage worker to ever make enough to start a billion dollar company, even if they worked 100hrs a week and didn't have any expenses which they obviously do.
Wealthy people don't get wealthy simply through hard work.
We have enough food to feed everyone on Earth, but we throw a third of it away. It's not lazy and entitled to say that every human being deserves to have their basic needs met regardless of how much they can contribute. Human beings want to be productive, but not under the pain of starvation and death. You don't have a choice, work or die. No one is paid for the full amount of their labour.
Bezos doesn't work a million times harder than his minium wage employees but he's paid a million times more.
The owner class and the worker class are at odds with each other.
One tries to get as much wealth as they can for their labour, and the other tries to extract as much wealth as they can from others labour. It's a broken and unjust system that let's people die while withholding and wasting essential resources and tells them if they didn't want to die they should have worked harder.
You don't know anything about me, I'm not a socialist because I'm lazy, I'm a socialist because I care about other people who are dying because they couldn't possibly work hard enough to survive.
We live under oligarchy and you seem okay with that so I'm guessing you believe that you can one day become one.
My goal in life is to look after my family and try help as many others as I can, not exploit 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
-
@TRIIGGAVELLI I'm not living in the underdeveloped third world country you call America so my life has definitely improved since Trump left office, I don't have to hear his insane ramblings and incoherent lies every day, things are a lot better for me.
Obviously your country is getting worse abd worse because Biden is a moderate conservative so he will barely undo any of the damage Trump and the GOP did during his term, he's just treading water.
Haha I knew I was right on the money with you, it's always trump supporters who call others NPCs when you dimwits all wear the same hat and believe everything your insane leader says.
You think that obvious moron is a genius and any criticism against him is "fake news" like obedient little lemmings, doing exactly what he tells you to do.
Biden got the most votes of any president in history but he doesn't even have any loyal followers, the majority of the country just hates your cult leader so much they would rather have anyone else.
Do you ever stop to wonder why your leader is so popular with far right militias, former KKK grand masters and literal neo Nazis?
That doesn't give you pause?
That he openly calls himself a nationalist and tells violent hate groups to "stand down and stand by"?
That he used "America first" and "MAGA" in the exact same way Germany did in 1939 with "Germany first" and "make Germany strong again".
That he was best friends with Epstein for 10 years.
None of those things bother you?
Who am I kidding, you're probably completely unaware and haven't even thought about it because you only think what he tells you to think.
Love talking to NPCs in denial.
You're just going to ignore or deny everything I just said like you're programmed to do, there's no chance you respond in an honest and mature manner like a rational adult, anyone still capable of independent and rational thought stopped supporting him long ago.
Go Google cognitive dissonance for me bud.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Oromie9 You know more people lose money through wage theft than taxes right?
Private companies have their hands in your pocket more than the government does.
I want you to keep your money too, I think anyone who makes less than 75k a year shouldn't be taxed at all, and everyone who has more than a billion dollars should be taxed at 70% for every dollar over a billion they have.
Right now poor people are paying taxes that are only used to help rich people, who pay little to no taxes.
It's a stupid system.
Under socialism your employment would be guaranteed, you would work less hours, fewer days a week, and be paid more than you currently are.
Healthcare would be a human right guaranteed to everyone.
Housing would be made affordable.
Public transport would be expanded and made free to use.
Education at all levels would be free and available to everyone.
It would be a better system that would make the world better.
Instead of slaving away in dystopian factories owned by modern day kings until we're burned out, all for wages so low most people can barely afford to live, with millions of unemployed, we could build a better system that works for everyone, not just the 1%.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@qerza3742 Nothing you said is an argument for fat shaming tho.
Even if you were correct that every person is capable of losing weight and not being overweight, you aren't correct by the way, try googling the reasons why it isn't possible or realistic for some people to lose weight.
But even if you were correct, that doesn't mean fat shaming is good, it's been proven to be ineffective at motivating people to lose weight, it mostly just makes fat people feel ashamed and disgusting and want to stay inside and maybe unalive themselves.
They know they are fat.
You don't need to let them know.
Doing so is just cruel, and probably makes you feel good, some people enjoy making other people feel misery and hate themselves, it's a terrible way of motivating people to change.
And many overweight people don't actually need to change, even if YOU want them to because you're fat-phobic.
Overweight doesn't always equal unhealthy, just like skinny doesn't equal healthy.
Just because you would be more attracted to a skinny person, and probably nicer to them as well, there is a high likelihood that the skinny person is more unhealthy than the fat person who you would treat with less human decency.
I bet the thought of bullying a skinny person into changing because "you know what a person is capable of" has never crossed your mind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@epix4300 I was talking about the Soviet union, not modern day Russia. You should slow down and read more carefully, think about what is acting being said.
My point was that Russia went from a backwards shit hole to a world superpower and their greatest time of prosperity while socialism was implemented, once the Soviet union was disbanded and Russia became a neoliberal Capitalist country everything got worse.
That is literally my point.
I'm 27 btw, and yeah I'm ignoring the Quran debate, because it's ultimately semantics, you aren't arguing against something that causes real world harm to people that you want to see stop, seems like you don't know or even care enough to learn about it, you're just deeming an old religions text evil to win a debate in a comment section. It's hyperbolic and devoid of any real world meaning, the Quran is no more evil than the bible which discuses buying, owning and beating siaves, I honestly don't care what the old book says. I care about what the actual human beings who follow the religion do, and most of them live peaceful and loving lives and don't murder anybody.
The fact that you are so determined to prove the Quran is theoretically evil but your response to the United States killing children this year is something like "oh I'll have to look into that" says so much about you.
I'd rather debate things that matter, ideas that will lead to material change to the world, making it better.
You're commenting on videos that you aren't even watching like a child, "leftist lies" "imagine being a socialist", things dripping with smug immaturity and utter ignorance.
You're damn right I'm on the far left, that's literally where all the best ideas, philosophy, science, music and art come from.
Haven't you noticed that things get better when progressives are in charge, that's when things, you know, progress.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@psp1921tsmg Hey dude!
Really enjoyed our debate last time. Ready for round two?
I'm sorry the last one devolved into stupid bitter ad homonym, as online discourse often does.
Though I may disagree with you, I know you aren't actually stupid. You debated quite well and I didn't exactly crush you.
I'm going to do my best to keep it clean. You obviously aren't stupid, but I do suppose that I'm smarter since I managed to not come to the incorrect conclusion on whether systematic racism does or does not exist.
You got through 38 minutes last time, do you think you could manage 48?
A sequel of sorts was uploaded because a conservative grifter, whose argument style and point of view reminded me of you, arguing yet again that systematic racism doesn't exist, when it clearly and demonstrably does.
You were pretty firm about goading me into listing some examples directly last time, so I'm assuming you're someone who doesn't back down when their intelligence and point of view is challenged.
I'll happily make points that are supported by facts presented in the video and it's list of sources, if you don't feel like watching it.
But it would be easier for both of us if you just watch it.
But if you insist on not, I'm confident I can destroy your argument that systematic racism doesn't exist, by proving that it does.
You seemed pretty confident in your point of view last time.
Willing to put that to the test?
https://youtu.be/GyNVIUpGTWM
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Wingster That's not what this video is saying, your inventing a strawman.
No one is saying you should hate everyone you disagree with or you are complicit in the destruction of humanity, you're literally making that up yourself.
I'm all for talking to one another but that doesn't work with people who want to literally exterminate everyone they don't like.
Focusing on yourself will be fine until the fascists take over and you have to decide whether you are going to wake up and fight back or sign up for the firing squad.
You know that's what the GOP's most loyal supporters are waiting for right?
At conservative conventions they literally get up and ask people like Ted Cruz when they can join the firing squads and start killing us.
Focusing on your personal life alone is a luxury, it's not something poor people of colour can do, not something that trans people can do, not something that anyone with a uterus can do anymore unless they are happy to give up their bodily autonomy.
You're speaking from a place of privilege, which is probably why this video makes you uncomfortable, you don't like being called out for being politically disengaged because politics doesn't directly affect your life in any way you can discern and you'd rather just focus on yourself, and you want that to be perfectly okay and not something you need to feel bad about.
Well maybe you should put aside some energy for your neighbor, for your friends that are in a vulnerable group.
You don't have to give everything up and become an activist, but the least you could do is be a little more informed and have an opinion on things that matter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@helldeirch No, I'm not arguing that monarchy was actually better.
But it was better for the monarchs.
Just like capitalism is better for the capitalists.
The transition wasn't from monarchy to democracy by the way, the fact that you think it was is very telling on just how uneducated you are on history.
No wonder you are so ignorant of all the successes of the USSR, history is obviously not your strong suit.
The monarchs didn't just decide one day to disband monarchy in favour of feudalism because it's better for everyone, systems of power don't automatically change because one is better than the other, we have to make it change.
So your assertion that if Socialism was better than capitalism then it would have automatically replaced it is stupid, the dominant system isn't there because it's the best system but because it serves the people in power.
There needs to be an organized movement or revolution to change a system.
And that hasn't happened yet for overthrowing capitalism.
But that doesn't prove capitalism is the best system, only that it's a difficult system to change or overthrow, because those in power have a lot of control, and they've convinced lemmings like yourself to turn your brain off and declare this system the best system because it's the one you happen to be in.
And like a lemming you posit that if there was a better system then the world would just change around you and you wouldn't have to do anything.
But that's not how the world works.
Superior systems don't just replace inferior ones if the inferior system suits the needs of those in power better than the other systems, like how monarchy suited the needs of the monarchs despite it's inferiority as a system compared to those which came after it.
We have to make things change.
Capitalism is a terrible system that benefits the few at the cost of the many.
It's better than monarchy but it isn't actually democratic, the same power structures exist, they just have different names.
Socialism is a better system, and the movement supporting it is growing.
The world needs to change and it can be better.
You can ignore all the problems in the world because the current system is working fine for you, but don't tell others they should move somewhere else because there are those of us who care about things outside of ourselves and want to change the world for the better not because it would be better for us personally, but better for everyone.
Except for the capitalists, but fuck em.
Like the monarchs who lost everything when monarchy was violently replaced with feudalism, the capitalists will have to get a real job and contribute something meaningful to society rather than living like kings because they own things and can pay other people to work for 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lordvader3425 A week into Israel’s war on Gaza, 800 eminent scholars and practitioners of law sounded the alarm about an imminent G n0 cide in the territory. What made this warning both powerful and chilling was that so many legal experts came to this sombre conclusion together. It is not a claim that can be made easily.
Since that letter was released, the situation in Gaza has only gotten worse. The death toll has passed 11,000, while some 2,650 individuals, including approximately 1,400 children, are reported missing, potentially trapped or deceased beneath the rubble. Tens of thousands of wounded are overwhelmingly struggling medical facilities. The humanitarian situation has reached horrific levels, compounded by the lack of food, water, fuel and electricity.
To understand what is transpiring in Gaza, we must turn to the key legal frameworks that define G n0 cide: Article 6 of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court and Article 2 of the G n0 cide Convention.
According to these documents, "the G word" involves acts committed with the specific intent to destroy, either in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These acts encompass killing members of the group, causing them serious harm, and imposing conditions of life aimed at physical destruction of the group in whole or in part, among other underlying acts. Notably, the people targeted can be a geographically limited part of the group.
Gaza’s devastating reality mirrors these components of G n0 cide. Despite claiming to target only Hamas, Israel is engaged in an all-out assault on the whole population of Gaza. In just the first week of its relentless assault, it dropped more than 6,000 bombs on the Strip – nearly as many as the United States used in Afghanistan in a full year.
Using high-impact munitions in one of the most densely populated places in the world inevitably leads to a high death toll among civilians, as we have witnessed already in Gaza. In a month, the Israeli bombardment has killed more than 4,400 children and 2,900 women, with many of the men in these horrific statistics also non-combatants.
The Israeli army has also dropped any pretence to “precision strikes”, as its spokesperson Daniel Hagari said its emphasis is “on damage and not accuracy”.
It has also mass-targeted civilian buildings, including hospitals and schools sheltering the displaced. It has bombed residential buildings, wiping out whole families from the population registrar; more than 45 percent of homes were destroyed or damaged, many of them in the supposed “safe areas” of the south where the Israeli army had instructed Palestinians to evacuate to.
This mass killing of civilians is accompanied by the imposition of life conditions aimed clearly at the physical destruction of the Palestinian people. Israel has put Gaza under complete siege, with “no electricity, no food, no water, no gas”, as declared by Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.
Israel’s bombing of hospitals, the targeting of their solar panels and the blocking of fuel deliveries indicate an intent to prevent Palestinians from accessing life-saving healthcare. More than one-third of hospitals and two-thirds of primary healthcare in Gaza have already shut down.
The Israeli refusal to allow adequate amounts of much-needed humanitarian aid – including food and water – indicates it is willing to allow the Palestinian population to succumb to starvation and disease.
Israeli government and military officials have also verbalised their G n0 cidal intent towards the Palestinian people. On October 9, when announcing the full blockade, Gallant described the 2.3 million people in Gaza as “human animals”. On October 29, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used Judaic scripture to justify the killing of Palestinians. “You must remember what Amalek did to you, says our Holy Bible,” he said, quoting a verse that goes on to say: “Now go and smite Amalek … kill both man and woman, infant.”
You really stand by the IDF's actions?
You agree with these words?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soyboylegends7832 The point is that capitalism provides mind numbing, repetitive unfulfilling work, that doesn't even pay very well, usually just enough to be able to afford to live.
Under communism not only could we work less hours, fewer days a week, we could be paid more for our work and have some say in how we do our job, some control over how it's done, it can made more fulfilling.
Working 30 hours a week in an Amazon factory still won't be the best job, but if pays you enough to be able to live comfortably, pay for all your food, enjoy your free time and go on holiday every year, plus being able to take bathroom breaks without being punished or losing compensation, well it would be a lot better than the current way we do things.
Amazon's workers won't ever be able to live decent lives with dignity so long as all the profits are going into Jeff Bezos pocket and his executives bonuses. The factory workers do the actual hard work, the company would be nothing without them.
Amazon should be nationalized and integrated into the post office, all employees should be paid more than a living wage and work 4 days a week for less hours.
Studies have shown that working less for shorter amounts of time is better for worker productivity and efficiency, as well as overall job satisfaction and well being.
There are better ways to organize our means of production and distribution, we should try them and build a more democratic egalitarian future that provides a good life for all human beings, not just the 1%.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@13e11even11 Are you denying that capitalism goes through boom and bust cycles and has consistently for as long as it's been our economic system?
That's what they mean by it collapses cyclically, because it does.
It's an inherently unstable and unsustainable economic system.
Capitalism is the cause of most of the misery in the world today.
We are less free today than our ancestors were, in a number of ways, because of capitalism.
What you think is based on propaganda, not reality.
Your idealized version of capitalism doesn't exist, has never existed, and doesn't work like that in theory.
It goes against human nature, appealing only to our greed and ruthlessness, it incentivizes selfishness.
It inhibits our creativity, compassion and cooperation.
You know humans are a naturally cooperative species, not a competitive one right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JL-zv6ki No, that's not what communism is, at all.
That's completely false.
Communism is not when everyone gets paid the same regardless of how hard you work, that's what you are describing as happening right now, under capitalism.
That's capitalism dude.
That's just how wage labour works.
You're paid for your time, not your labour.
Under capitalism, the system we have now, you get laid the same wage regardless of how hard you work.
If you work extra hard and the company makes more profit, that goes to the bosses, not to you.
But if you don't work hard enough for your wage the bosses can fire you, it's lose lose.
That's capitalism, and it wouldn't happen under communism.
You should spend more time learning about communism, a system where you earn the full value of your labour, it would probably appeal to you.
Communists and socialists are the only reason we have weekends, the 40 hour work week, minimum wage, and child labor laws.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Goulash45 I'm not saying you're wrong and that it's not a factor, but unless it's being compared to the socioeconomic factors then you can't conclusively say it's the main factor, just that it is a factor.
And I've already made an argument for why that doesn't mean much when it comes to the United States and crime because of the historical context, are you going to respond to that argument or just ignore it?
You do know that there are decades-long studies showing the impact of poverty on crime in America and how the ending of slavery in normal life led to the rise of the prison industrial complex?
It's been proven that socioeconomic background has a major impact on whether people are more likely to commit crime or not in the united states.
Now is that in part because of a culture of manifest destiny, the emphasis on freedom, might makes right mentality that is baked into the fabric of the United States?
Sure, you could make a strong argument for that.
But it would be more practical and straightforward to just end poverty, tax the rich, cut the military budget, move towards prison abolition and invest in low income communities.
The better access to education, healthcare and housing people are the less likely they are to commit crime, and education would be where any cultural problems would be addressed anyway, so what leftists are suggesting would be the solution to the problem you are choosing to highlight as well as change the material conditions of the least fortunate.
Conservatives don't have any comprehensive plans for HOW to address the problem of crime, in part because of the wealthy conservatives who control the movement being heavily invested in private prisons and benefiting from the status quo.
They don't want to eliminate crime, when it increases it gives them a chance to lock more people up, which doesn't fix anything in society and nothing improves, but their bottom line goes up. The US didn't end up with the largest prison population in the world by accident.
1
-
1
-
@Goulash45 So is white crime caused by a "problematic" culture?
Or is that one of the "better" cultures?
Weird how you choose to single out black culture, I'm realizing precisely why you follow AJW and that these "correct solutions" you were talking about earlier are not actually comprehensive policies that can be implemented to improve society.
I basically said the same thing earlier, just in a less um, "racially insensitive" way.
That culture can't be changed from the outside and it's a waste of time to focus on it the way you conservatives do.
Would be much more practical and logical to address poverty, a universal factor in crime that would help everyone regardless of race, and reduce crime.
Plus it won't require singling out any race of people in a way that's really sus to anyone who is smart enough to know that the phrase "Make America Great Again" is a racist dog whistle.
Oh yeah of course, 'American exceptionalism" means that practical common sense solutions to poverty and crime reduction just magically don't work in that country, how could I forget such a rational and logical point?!🤣
Interesting how black people have a "problematic" culture but you don't consider American culture as a whole to be problematic even tho it apparently means practical improvements to material conditions don't work to improve people's lives in America for some unspecified reason, which seems pretty problematic to me.
To the rest of the world, American culture seems very problematic to us, with your unparalleled amount of mass killings, domestic right wing terrorists, cops who routinely murder unarmed innocent minorities, corrupt political and private sectors, and wannabe fascist leaders.
But according to rational and logical conservatives like you America's culture is too special and powerful.
I feel completely owned by facts and logic, gonna go change my entire worldview now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Normie_Normalson Jesus dude, literally everything you assumed about me could be applied to you and the people in your echo chamber, you're just projecting.
You're the one picking and choosing which aspects of history fit your narrow worldview.
You pointed out a single example which are rare exceptions from the pattern I demonstrated of the united states imperialism against non white countries.
The fact that they bombed Serbia doesn't change the fact that they have invaded or interfered with Venezuela, Peru, Brazil, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Bolivia, and those are just off the top of my head, I could google dozens more.
A single example doesn't disprove the pattern.
You suck at debating dude, cherry picking single instances in history to fit your narrative compared to an extensive list of multiple events spread over decades.
Not even close.
You guys are only good at debating in your own echo chamber, everyone else knows that facts aren't on your side, that's why you're so selective with the ones you choose to acknowledge.
TLDR: Pot calling Kettle, "cartoonishly reductive worldview" couldn't put it better myself, stop projecting.
There is nothing more cartoonishly reductive than saying European countries are successful because they are majoring white and implying that non white people have inferior culture or genetics or whatever.
That's the definition of reductive dude.
Jesus Christ.
1
-
1
-
@Normie_Normalson You gonna address my first reply to you or nah?
If free market economies are so good why is everything in The United States so terrible?
The middle class is disappearing, wealth inequality continues to increase, low income people can't afford housing, healthcare, childcare, education or find a decent enough job to sustain them.
Homelessness is on the rise, a problem Finland has almost eliminated by providing housing, and the only thing America is number one in is military spending and incarceration.
What mental gymnastics do you have to perform to excuse those things?
America is one of the worst places to live unless you are rich.
"Free" market economies do not equal freedom for poor people.
Vietnam was destitute until 86 because it was recovering from the war, you can spin a narrative that it was because of the communist government but the most obvious explanation was the war waged on them by the richest country on earth left them destitute especially because the population was so low after all the war crimes the US committed on civilians.
You are ignoring so much history to try and spin your narrative.
A childish reductive view, that is the best description for your views on race and culture.
You can't deny that, only ignore it like a coward.
France should really ask for the Statue of liberty back, since the United States no longer believes in giving liberty to the tired and the poor.
They should reclaim the statue and give it to a more developed country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rowmin6433 Countries fail for a myriad of different reasons, mostly through illegal CIA intervention, the fact that you don't know how any of them failed and you think all communist countries magically fail on their own show you haven't looked into it, at all. You're the one lying, you think you know everything you need to know about communism but you only know the lies you've been fed by the rich and powerful.
Everyone doesn't want to live in a free market country, the majority of people in communist countries are in favour of the system, that's why they vote for it.
Most socialist governments are elected through the democratic process, they improve the quality of life in their country, and then American tax dollars are spent undermining democracy in other countries and actively making life worse.
Look at what the US did in Chile, they overthrew the democratically elected government and installed a puppet dictatorship that killed people and favoured US hegemony over the lives of it's people.
The United States govt abd the CIA have openly admitted to interfering in Latin American countries over 50 times, they tried to assassinate Fidel Castro over 600 times, everyone knows this.
Think about it for a moment, if communism always fails then why does the United States waste billions trying to sabotage it while their own country turns to shit?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1