It’s the death of the macro culture. All the styles from all the previous eras now coexist and are very much in depending on what sub culture you belong too. Like if you are the edgy kind of teen right now you are wearing y2k style clothing, but if you are more of a normie you wear more classic street wear. If you’re a fashion forward guy in his late 20’s or early 30’s, 40’s to 60’s inspired menswear is the thing to wear. And so on.

This is hands down the most unhinged thing I’ve read in a long while. You really ought to go to touch grass or something my guy. I’ve never even seen someone say shit like this on 4chan, thats how absolutely unhinged you are dude,

https://news.gallup.com/poll/645704/slim-majority-adults-say-changing-gender-morally-wrong.aspx

Accepting that people can live as they wish is not the same thing as transphobia not being a common view.

I don’t think there’s a lot of bad people in the world as in people with bad intentions. I’d say they are ignorant and selfish.

Yes, that’s how systems perfect themselves. Once more Hegel is proven correct.

What if the people never agree with you? What if you can never convince them that for example transgender women should be able to use the women’s bathroom? What if people elect officials that pass laws to make sure they can’t? Would you accept that outcome peacefully as part of the democratic process? Would you be content with what the people have chosen? Democracy can be as tyrannical as any other system, for progressives there is a moral imperative to not accept outcomes that hurt people even if it is done through the democratic process.

If the best course of action is the only choice then there isn’t a choice at all.

For example we might know that universal healthcare is better for society in almost every aspect, however people might feel that they prefer lower taxes regardless of the benefits that universal healthcare might provide and so they vote against a measure to establish universal healthcare. This is the people choosing out of their own free will to vote against their best interests, democracy is ok with bad outcomes that result out of collective choice. The progressive movement is not ok with negative outcomes, and as such will always choose the best course of action.

The “progressive” movement in the US is without a doubt 100% the unaware foot soldiers of the elites. Every single thing the movement supports only helps to further entrench capital into power. The file and rank of the progressives are well intentioned, no doubt, and the goals are nobles. But because the idea is to solve problems from the top down instead of the bottom up, all it serves is to further create methods for capitalism to solve the internal contradictions that would otherwise result in its collapse. Furthermore it is not a democratic movement nor interested in democracy in any shape or form and saying so is as much newspeak as fascist saying the same thing. It is a technocratic movement that dismisses the wisdom of the masses for the wisdom of the experts, and I do not think that’s necessarily a problem in practice, the problem is that people, as stupid as they are, are smart enough to realize that either you believe in democracy or you believe in doing whatever is scientifically, statistically or mathematically is proven to be better but both things cannot be true at the same time. Honestly I feel like progressives would fare better if they actually had a mask off moment and actively campaigned on that.

I find that it’s pretty much the same if not worse on here on certain topics. Like you might agree on the problem but if you disagree on the solution as generally accepted by whoever sets the agenda you are the enemy. I’m banned from some political instances because I have dared question the progressive’s positions/solutions on certain topics. Like apparently because your goal is morally “right” that justifies using stupid ass solutions instead of attempting to fix deeper rooted issues.

Oh I’m also generally allowed to say retarded on here, but we’ll see if that’s true.

I immediately thought about sovereign citizens too. They are what happens when basedness meets with absolute idiocy.

401ks, IRAs, Pensions etc.

Oh you thought they were investing their own money? Hahahaha

Animals are not objects.

Only in political systems that were not designed with partisanship in mind and thus became the worse partisan shithole to be conceived.

It’s weird that all countries have the same policies if they are so bad. But here’s the fact: the stronger your safety nets, the more difficult do you have to make immigration lest the system collapse. And allowing immigrants that cannot access the safety nets is a sure fire way to increase your crime rate because now you have a underclass that wouldn’t have existed. So yes the US should have laxer immigration policies than other countries, but not full blown open borders. Not unless there is a practical reason to do so, which there isn’t.

I never said it was impossible, I said we need to slow walk it because it can’t be radical, not unless you are willing to commit literal murder. I’d advocate for accelerationism first before I advocate for killing people who oppose you ideologically.

True we have the resources in theory. The problem is that the necessary structural change to do that right now is so great that it can only be done by literally nuking civilization out of existence and starting over again. Seeing as that might not actually be a good option, we need to slow walk it because the other ways have been tried and they don’t end well

And yes I’m exclusionary because everyone else is. I would love to hop on a plane and move to somewhere in Spain right now. But guess what? They don’t make it that easy. That’s what I meant earlier when I said something about everyone being on the same legal framework. I couldn’t find th right words but the gist is that unless every country on earth has open borders then no country on earth should have open borders.

I never said the opposite. But social nets have their limits because resources are not infinite. First we need to make sure the material needs of our people are met before we can help others. I don’t understand how this is a controversial thing to say.

Wow my guy, just wow. Bravo, you’ve turned this into an art.

Then what is it? Because it sure as fuck doesn’t sound right wing but someone just called me right wing because I agree in some points with MAGA. 🤣

Right there it says that there are other measures that led to the reduction in poverty. Here’s my thing, if you increase the minimum wage, don’t change the definition or the line at which someone is considered to be living in poverty, and run a census the next day poverty will appear to have been reduced by a lot because everyone is now making the increased minimum wage yay! However if there’s inflation, in a few more months we might be back to where we were in the first place in real terms, however unless you change the line in which poverty begins, you will still be able to clam that you decreased poverty. Poverty is not about the money someone is making, but rather how much what they make buys.

I’m in favor of social nets but, again, I dont see compelling evidence that raising minimum wage is anything but a placebo.

1. I don’t think that, but I do know that if 1 singe American is having a hard time while we are helping 1 illegal immigrant, then we are doing something wrong and it will breed resentment.

2. You are a bad faith argumenter. I’ve never said science is fake, I’ve said that social science (though it also happens in the natural sciences to a lesser degree) is not really science, not with any degree of certainty as physics etc. here’s a little summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis?wprov=sfti1

but searching in Google Scholar or JSTOR will bring up many many studies about the problem. So when people say “the science backs this” using a social science study that is not replicable, it takes two brain cells to realize that no, there is no science backing such a claim.

3. Yes I also meant farms which are also very often corporations. And that’s what I said in my very first comment, the Trump administration says a lot of things that are right (they say a lot more that are wrong but they are not wrong about everything ), but they use it to serve their interests instead of actually solving the problems. Farmers are the biggest enemies of any of the solutions to many of the problems in America, we should nationalize the whole industry at this point because it cannot exist without government subsidies and yet they use the money to lobby against environmental and immigration reforms. They like the status quo. But if you don’t want to nationalize them we can stop subsidizing them and simply subsidize their wages directly in such a way that they can pay living wages instead of relying on immigrant labor.

But again you are arguing in bad faith and I do not think that you have any coherent ideology that isn’t “oppose everything the other guys do”.