|
Cemetry Gator posted:The situation in Texas shows what happens when the Free Market is at work.  "If we keep the price low then people will take too much and we'll run out of toilet paper/electricity /healthcare! By adjusting the price to demand the market will reach an equilibrium that will encourage people to use the resources sparingly! If you can't afford it in the first place then it's the fault of leftists who want to make everything free by stealing from you to pay for it! "
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 22:15 |
|
|
Panfilo posted:Isn't this the whole arguement Libertarians have in favor of price gouging? yes every time there's a disaster they wail about what an injustice is that price-gouging is discouraged either by anti-gouging laws or just by people saying "hey stop price-gouging cmon don't be a dick", naturally it's only Libertarians who aren't in the disaster area needing to buy necessities who say this, because they can't feel empathy for the people experiencing a natural disaster but they can feel avarice by imagining themselves as the ones getting rich doing the price gouging E: the argument goes that if prices skyrocket people will naturally conserve (except the rich who don't care and the poor who just die), and the high prices will incentivize people to deliver more essential goods to the area out of greed on the other hand, reality: https://twitter.com/jmontforttx/status/1361703554789031937 VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Feb 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 01:17
|
|
|
People like John Stossel always defend it because it “makes sure resources are distributed to those who need them most.” It would be a perfectly reasonable position if every single person has about the same amount of money, versus our society where one person has enough money to hoard resources for millions of people without even noticing it, so either libertarians are secretly market socialists or disingenuous monsters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 01:21
|
|
|
Really starting to realise why everyone hates Texas apart from Texans... unless they are non-white/protestant/female etc etc, in which cases Texans hate them. Snark aside, despite my efforts to hide from the news this thread and other coincidences have put me in a position that I often find myself in: for those people who were just caught in the middle of this disaster, you have my compassion unless you're a racist etc. If you were bitching about BIG GUB'MENT and this happened to you, gently caress you you deserve to suffer a bit. If you are profiting from the situation and/or are glad that decent people are suffering, then you genuinely deserve to be electrocuted to death because that's the most ironic punishment I can think of. JustJeff88 fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Feb 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 01:30
|
|
|
California learned this exact lesson back in 2000 with Enron and the other suppliers. They de-regulated and the power companies ran roughshod over the state to get a quick buck at the detriment of consumers. The power companies do not care about you. Why is this so loving hard to understand?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 01:51
|
|
|
Karia posted:California learned this exact lesson back in 2000 with Enron and the other suppliers. They de-regulated and the power companies ran roughshod over the state to get a quick buck at the detriment of consumers. The power companies do not care about you. Why is this so loving hard to understand? If I've learned one thing from jrodefeld over the years, and I haven't, it's that the explanation for this is always that the problems were all Big Government's fault because California didn't deregulate enough The path to Libertarian utopia is a discontinuous non-monotonic function: the more Libertarian you become the worse everything gets as you descend into total poo poo, until you cross the threshold into True Libertarianism (which has never been tried) then utopia suddenly kicks in Also while I'm making this argument I need you to forget about my list of "most free" countries that purports to show the amount of Libertarianism is directly correlated to increasing happiness and prosperity
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 02:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If I've learned one thing from jrodefeld over the years, and I haven't, it's that the explanation for this is always that the problems were all Big Government's fault because California didn't deregulate enough That was Enron's exact argument at the time. Even when they were throwing the whole effort under the bus and defauding the market. But hey, nothing they did would have been illegal if there weren't any laws so under libertarianism they'd be all good!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 02:22
|
|
|
haha yea They only had to conspire to cause deliberate shortages in order to trigger the emergency suspensions of the price caps because the caps existed in the first place, if they'd been able to bill everyone $2000/MW-hr anytime they liked because gently caress you natural monopoly, there wouldn't have been any need for the conspiracy and fraud!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 02:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Also while I'm making this argument I need you to forget about my list of "most free" countries that purports to show the amount of Libertarianism is directly correlated to increasing happiness and prosperity Don't forget the de facto legalized chattel slavery, that's always a winner. Seriously, though, the situation in Texas is pretty much the perfect example of what happens when you allow the commodification of something that ought to be a public good. It's so on the loving nose, relative to what we've been trying to get JRod to understand, that I'm half-tempted to claim that objective reality itself has decided to weigh in with a timely example of just how wrong he is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 08:51
|
|
|
Jrod can you explain insulin?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 09:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well without the price cap of $5000/MW-hr, instead of a 10,000% increase we could have gotten a 1,000,000% increase or more which would have cratered demand especially if you got rid of those pesky regulations around not cutting off service in a disaster, allowed companies to require pre-pay etc. The Free Market sez: "You are just going outside and may be some time."
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 12:01
|
|
|
There's gotta be a lot of Libertarians in Texas. Are they just sitting in their subzero trailers full of.22L ammo saying to themselves, "this is fine."?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 14:14
|
|
|
Um they were the smartest guys in the room so it was their right to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense. It was inevitable and good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 15:13
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:There's gotta be a lot of Libertarians in Texas. Are they just sitting in their subzero trailers full of.22L ammo saying to themselves, "this is fine."? That friend-of-a-friend that I posted is also defending the power plants' decision to ignore warnings that exactly this situation would happen if they didn't winterize because the "costs of winterization far outweigh the benefits in Texas", because storms like this never happen in Texas and you can't use the storm happening as proof this isn't true because that's "hindsight" Idk if he lives in Texas or is just an idiot from somewhere else though
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 15:20
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:There's gotta be a lot of Libertarians in Texas. Are they just sitting in their subzero trailers full of.22L ammo saying to themselves, "this is fine."? They will blame blacks/immigrants/liberals in roughly equal measure. Capital isn't going to take responsibility, the media won't give it to them because they are capital and Texas is dominated by ultra-conservative politicians who will find a convenient scapegoat. VitalSigns posted:That friend-of-a-friend that I posted is also defending the power plants' decision to ignore warnings that exactly this situation would happen if they didn't winterize because the "costs of winterization far outweigh the benefits in Texas", because storms like this never happen in Texas and you can't use the storm happening as proof this isn't true because that's "hindsight" Oddly enough, I just listened to a podcast from a guy who was in Texas in the mid-80s when they had six inches of snow and it shut down the state for days. People have short memories when they are trying to short-sightedly pinch even more money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
I think it's worth saying that there's a lot of non-conservative people in Texas, they just have systematically been shut out of most of the state government. There's actually a whole constructed narrative where Republicans often see Texas as some kind of "promised land" for the perceived injustice of California being under the control of the Democrats, and all the stereotypes about Texas embolden immigrants to the state with conservative views and discourage others from speaking up. It's depressing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:They will blame blacks/immigrants/liberals in roughly equal measure. Capital isn't going to take responsibility, the media won't give it to them because they are capital and Texas is dominated by ultra-conservative politicians who will find a convenient scapegoat. A year or so after my family moved to my father's duty station at Ft. Bliss near El Paso there was a foot or so snowfall. This would have been roughly that time. So a Minnesota kid saw his first igloo built in west Texas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:They will blame blacks/immigrants/liberals in roughly equal measure. Capital isn't going to take responsibility, the media won't give it to them because they are capital and Texas is dominated by ultra-conservative politicians who will find a convenient scapegoat. The narrative from the conservative people at work seems to be "it was just a freak storm, how could we possibly have prepared." I did point out that the entire problem was isolated to the texas grid and not the parts that are on the western or eastern grid which held up fine, and they just went "huh weird" and didn't say anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
SpaceSDoorGunner posted:The narrative from the conservative people at work seems to be "it was just a freak storm, how could we possibly have prepared." I did point out that the entire problem was isolated to the texas grid and not the parts that are on the western or eastern grid which held up fine, and they just went "huh weird" and didn't say anything. That's what dumb short-sighted people say anytime their failure to prepare fucks them, especially if they're ideologically committed to supporting governments that fail to prepare, because the alternative is admitting they hosed up. We saw the exact same thing with covid, after it became clear to everyone except super-cultists that covid was not actually fake and that it was killing hundreds of thousands of Americans and destroying the economy, I saw a million chuds commenting on my friends' and families stuff that we need to stop blaming covid on Trump, it's an act of God, how could he possibly have prevented a freak natural disaster from hitting the country, etc
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I think it's worth saying that there's a lot of non-conservative people in Texas, they just have systematically been shut out of most of the state government. I'm not going to go so far as saying that the conservatives should suffer and the others not, but as in any major tragedy it is hard to decide who is a victim of the system and who is gleefully and knowingly propagating it. I will confess that, twice in my life, I have had professional opportunities offered to me in Texas and I have turned them down in large part due to... let's call them "demographic differences". Among other things, my commie Jew foreigner arse is not going to get over in Texas, of all places. VitalSigns posted:That's what dumb short-sighted people say anytime their failure to prepare fucks them, especially if they're ideologically committed to supporting governments that fail to prepare, because the alternative is admitting they hosed up. I'm not proud of this, but I was a sceptic at first for the admittedly boneheaded reason that I thought that it was an oligarchic plot somehow. I quickly realised that I was an idiot, and perhaps my own suffering due to Covid was a fitting, ironic punishment, but I would like to think that it's slightly less moronic to blame the oligarchs who run this world and make everyone miserable versus accusing other sufferers and/or the people who are genuinely trying to help. Pendevil posted:A year or so after my family moved to my father's duty station at Ft. Bliss near El Paso there was a foot or so snowfall. This would have been roughly that time. So a Minnesota kid saw his first igloo built in west Texas. Fancy that. I was born and spent my earliest years in Montréal, so I have seen some snow myself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 21:36
|
|
|
i can't even take proper schadenfreude with what's happening in texas cause isn't it mainly being effected in the few democratic cities in the state?SpaceSDoorGunner posted:People like John Stossel always defend it because it “makes sure resources are distributed to those who need them most.” this makes no sense. the people who are willing to pay for price gouged products are the ones who would have the most money, not necessarily the ones who 'need it'. if an average human needs 10 lbs. of food per week to live, and that 10 lbs of food costs $500, and person A is a millionaire while person B is on food stamps, person A will obviously get the food, even though both A and B equally need it to live.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:i can't even take proper schadenfreude with what's happening in texas cause isn't it mainly being effected in the few democratic cities in the state? I still remember when 'Doctor D' David Schultz slapped the poo poo out of that prick Stossel. David said that Vince McMahon put him up to it and then denied it later when Stossel sued, which I can absolutely believe because McMahon is a massive twat. My only regret that is that it Schultz didn't kill him. I almost said 'didn't give him brain damage', but then I remembered that Stossel is a libertarian and already has a defective brain. It's just like someone like Stossel to try and take capitalism, a system that is built on maximizing profit and nothing more, and try to act as if resource efficiency is the goal. If that were the case, millionaires wouldn't have huge mansions because it would be much better to take the land and build high-density housing on it, yet building massive homes is clearly profitable because they exist. If efficient allocation was the goal America would have sensible health care and some semblance of public transit, yet big pharma and big auto lobby incessantly to keep the status quo. Hell, if capitalism were about efficiency there wouldn't be lobbyists, because it's a waste of time that serves no purpose except to ensure more profit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 22:18
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I still remember when 'Doctor D' David Schultz slapped the poo poo out of that prick Stossel. David said that Vince McMahon put him up to it and then denied it later when Stossel sued, which I can absolutely believe because McMahon is a massive twat. My only regret that is that it Schultz didn't kill him. I almost said 'didn't give him brain damage', but then I remembered that Stossel is a libertarian and already has a defective brain. yeah, do libertarians really think that having some people with 20 br mansions and tons of ghettos around the country demonstrate that this is the optimal distribution of wealth and resources?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
I mean, clearly yes as jrod demonstrates, what matters is the special mansion havers contributing immesurably to society with their giant IQ brains.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
Oh, it's an optimal distribution of resources because the "best" people have the most money, which is the way it should be. The best people have the most money because they are the best, and they are the best because they have the most money. That's the sort of 'reasoning' that libertarians use. The moment that I realised that I wanted to run FuckWit through was when he said that he considered egalitarianism as bad as white nationalism. Putting aside the sombre humour in that he is comparing two things that could not be more opposite, that was the moment I realised that almost all libertarians are essentially eugeno-fascists and that for most the only problem with a horribly biased system is that it's not biased in their favour. Another thing that made me realise what an imbecile it is came when people were sick of its horribleness and wanted to beat the gently caress out of it. Putting aside again the irony that, if not for state-sponsored justice and law enforcement someone would have killed it long ago, it tried to act tough. I would have laughed at that if I didn't hate it so much, but I also shook my head because it genuinely thinks that being good in a fight is the arbitre of right vs. wrong. To be honest, I am sure that FuckWit could beat me in a fist fight... I'm getting into middle age, I'm out of shape and have no training in boxing etc. On the other hand, I'm an expert swordsman and, were it still legally allowed, I would challenge it to a fair duel and gut it like a carp in seconds. That doesn't matter either because, despite what its ilk believe, might does not make right. I'm not a better person than it because I'm better with a blade or at chess or at making omelettes, I'm a better person than it because I'm not an amoral classist piece of poo poo. It really shows the core of its wretched philosophy when it decries state-initiated force yet thinks that it being better in a punch-up gives it the moral high ground. Then when we build an entire planet based on coercion, exploitation and force and the whole world is inevitably awful, it makes up the bogeyman of the state as the root of all evil. So, when its ideal society, which we are dangerously close to, turns more and more dystopian it can blame this all-purpose Root of All Evil without ever having to confront or admit that its entire world view is pure poison. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 23:42
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I will confess that, twice in my life, I have had professional opportunities offered to me in Texas and I have turned them down in large part due to... let's call them "demographic differences". Among other things, my commie Jew foreigner arse is not going to get over in Texas, of all places. See, I think that's another example of the stereotypes being ridiculous, because Texas is one of the fastest growing states in the country and it's full of immigrants, but somehow people can be convinced that it's insular and outsiders aren't welcomed. There was a muslim activity center next to my high school, my sister's apartment complex is full of indians and she regularly shops at a store that's part of a japanese dollar store chain, I see people going out on walks with saris and turbans every so often, and they seem fine. There's an enclave of Germans that have been here since like 1850 and they developed a Texan dialect of German. There's also a fairly prominent french jewish goon who lives in Texas and I haven't heard of any issues regarding that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 23:58
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:yeah, do libertarians really think that having some people with 20 br mansions and tons of ghettos around the country demonstrate that this is the optimal distribution of wealth and resources? as Just Jeff says, it's tautological. not all people are created equal, so equitable distribution of wealth is unnatural. in a free market, of course the hardest working and most productive will acquire wealth; it just so happens such people are few, and the lazy and unambitious are very many. that's why it's so unfair that I PERSONALLY am poor: the state is disrupting the natural order!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 00:19
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:Oh, it's an optimal distribution of resources because the "best" people have the most money, which is the way it should be. The best people have the most money because they are the best, and they are the best because they have the most money. That's the sort of 'reasoning' that libertarians use. The moment that I realised that I wanted to run FuckWit through was when he said that he considered egalitarianism as bad as white nationalism. Putting aside the sombre humour in that he is comparing two things that could not be more opposite, that was the moment I realised that almost all libertarians are essentially eugeno-fascists and that for most the only problem with a horribly biased system is that it's not biased in their favour. I think libertarianism was 100% invented as justification to preserve segregation and gut all social programs as a direct response to the civil rights movement, but the children and grandchildren of its architects took their absurd arguments at face value without understanding that they were meant as mere excuses to pursue naked racism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 00:22
|
|
|
The phrase I've heard libertarians say is "equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcome". So they'll start with the false premise that we all started at the same starting line, thus any difference in outcome is purely an individual failing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 00:43
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:See, I think that's another example of the stereotypes being ridiculous, because Texas is one of the fastest growing states in the country and it's full of immigrants, but somehow people can be convinced that it's insular and outsiders aren't welcomed. There was a muslim activity center next to my high school, my sister's apartment complex is full of indians and she regularly shops at a store that's part of a japanese dollar store chain, I see people going out on walks with saris and turbans every so often, and they seem fine. There's an enclave of Germans that have been here since like 1850 and they developed a Texan dialect of German. French Jews might be even rarer than British ones, but that aside please keep in mind that my perceptions of Texas were not the only, or even primary, reason for not going in both cases. I would not have let Texas' reputation stop me if that had been the sole reason, but it did occur to me. I am currently in the Bible Belt regardless, and it bloody sucks. You should tell me the name of this French chap, though - we could probably exchange some good stories. Muscle Tracer posted:as Just Jeff says, it's tautological. not all people are created equal, so equitable distribution of wealth is unnatural. in a free market, of course the hardest working and most productive will acquire wealth; it just so happens such people are few, and the lazy and unambitious are very many. that's why it's so unfair that I PERSONALLY am poor: the state is disrupting the natural order! I agree. As much as a I despise the terms 'left' and 'right', people have been trying to come up with a fundamental difference between the two for decades if not centuries. If I had to take a crack at it myself, I would say that the right, being self-interested, doesn't want the world to be unfair to them personally while the left just doesn't want the world to be unfair. If there is one defining characteristic that separates the two, I would say that it is empathy. Antifa Turkeesian posted:I think libertarianism was 100% invented as justification to preserve segregation and gut all social programs as a direct response to the civil rights movement, but the children and grandchildren of its architects took their absurd arguments at face value without understanding that they were meant as mere excuses to pursue naked racism. I would say that it was more as a response to the New Deal, which was in itself done to stave off a communist revolution, but I agree with your core idea here. I think that modern libertarianism, as I sympathise with the goals of classic libertarians, started out with the wealthy and businesses not wanting to pay taxes. They realised that the average person isn't going to give a toss about rich people whining about that, so as capital took more and more away from the productive classes they convinced them that it was -insert group here- that was the issue - fascism at its very core - and used that hatred of the underclass for the rest of the underclass as a way to shift blame from them and keep the proles fighting amongst themselves to that they didn't show up with pitchforks and torches. Clearly Regan and Thatcher were the ones that demonised black people and unions, respectively, but it was at the service of their fellow oligarchs. We are just going to have to agree to disagree here, because I think that the history of the far right both then and now - and, let's be honest, there is no real 'left-wing' anymore - is far more motivated by greed than racial animus. There is a lot of racism among the working-class right-wing, but I've said why I think that that exists. As for the oligarchy, I think that most care very little about skin colour etc so long as they can extract more wealth from those who do the real work. That is what neoliberalism, which I despise with all my heart and bile, is about : decry race discrimination and the like to create a benevolent facade while you impoverish the working classes and destroy the planet in order to give more money to shareholders. Panfilo posted:The phrase I've heard libertarians say is "equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcome". So they'll start with the false premise that we all started at the same starting line, thus any difference in outcome is purely an individual failing. To me that libertarian horseshit is irrelevant, because even if everyone were given the same opportunities not everyone is going to have the same results, therefore it's another argument for Fasco-eugenics. JustJeff88 fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Feb 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 00:46
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I would say that it was more as a response to the New Deal, which was in itself done to stave off a communist revolution, but I agree with your core idea here. I think that modern libertarianism, as I sympathise with the goals of classic libertarians, started out with the wealthy and businesses not wanting to pay taxes. They realised that the average person isn't going to give a toss about rich people whining about that, so as capital took more and more away from the productive classes they convinced them that it was -insert group here- that was the issue - fascism at its very core - and used that hatred of the underclass for the rest of the underclass as a way to shift blame from them and keep the proles fighting amongst themselves to that they didn't show up with pitchforks and torches. Clearly Regan and Thatcher were the ones that demonised black people and unions, respectively, but it was at the service of their fellow oligarchs. I definitely agree with you about the origins and purposes to which modern racism has been put in the United States, but there's also a drive for it that is not purely rational and which many Americans gladly die to protect--not among the ruling class always or necessarily, but things like the parts of trump that the establishment found thorny to handle and tried to neutralize show that it has a life of its own, so to speak. Segregation and an understanding of everything through a lens of white-over-black is utterly foundational to the thought of many white Americans born before desegregation, in a way that often remains invisible until they're poked in just the right way because it is so much a part of their worldview. They're simply not rational actors because of it no matter their material circumstances. I am happy to agree to disagree on this also.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 01:02
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:I definitely agree with you about the origins and purposes to which modern racism has been put in the United States, but there's also a drive for it that is not purely rational and which many Americans gladly die to protect--not among the ruling class always or necessarily, but things like the parts of trump that the establishment found thorny to handle and tried to neutralize show that it has a life of its own, so to speak. Segregation and an understanding of everything through a lens of white-over-black is utterly foundational to the thought of many white Americans born before desegregation, in a way that often remains invisible until they're poked in just the right way because it is so much a part of their worldview. They're simply not rational actors because of it no matter their material circumstances. I am happy to agree to disagree on this also. I agree with you, believe it or not; -isms are inherently irrational and the idea of someone being inferior due to different eye shape or higher skin melanin value is ludicrous beyond ludicrous. My point is exactly yours, I feel, in that everyone but the wealthiest of the wealthy has been getting poorer for at least four decades and if people were at all rational they would realise who their tormentor is, band together and take down big capital. I think that a lot of oligarchs back in the segregation era were very racist themselves but, as time goes on and generations are born and die ideas change. Overall since WW2 huge gains have been made in regards to a lot of social attitudes even if the last few years have seen regression, but things are still definitely better now than in 1950. Despite mostly positive social change greed, sadly, is eternal it seems, and I think that a lot of oligarchs have realised that identity feuding is a great red herring in order to keep people fighting each other rather than them. I think that lingering racial (etc) hate is still burning because the fires have been stoked by capital. They may not be racist etc themselves, but they are going to do anything to preserve their parasitic position and if it means inciting race wars then so be it. Like 99% of the world, even the most stereotypical gun-loving, Bible-thumping red-neck knows that his life, materially speaking, has been getting shittier for decades. As much as we want to call them dumb hicks, they aren't the (mythical) frog that lets himself be boiled alive. We live in fascist times and fascism needs a scapegoat to keep people from realising who is really to blame. Capital is fully aware that it has to, at all costs, keep people from developing class consciousness. This requires dividing people upon arbitrary and irrational lines, and what easier way to do so than to agitate racial tension that was starting to calm? Frankly, I think that it's irrational and disgusting that most people still think that Bezos deserves his 70 billion or whatever or that LeBron James deserves 30+ million a year to bounce a ball. I am offended to my marrow when people try to defend that, yet I am clearly in the minority. People celebrate greed, excess and hoarding, as well as the system that encourages it, in anglophone cultures especially. Personally, I find this as offensive as any racial oppression you care to name. Moreso, perhaps because it is discrimination and immiseration that is all-encompassing and strikes everyone of all stripes where it hurts the most: by taking away the food that they eat, the shelter that protects them and the opportunities that allow them the chance to better themselves. In regards to Trump, I am going to say something that you are all not going to like... I understand and somewhat commiserate with why people voted for him in 2016. Simply put, he pretended to give a poo poo about the struggling classes. He didn't, of course, but he pretended to while Ms. Hilary was so sure that she would win easily against this horrible parody of a human being and acted as if nothing was wrong because, well, for people in her tax bracket everything is great. That said, he had surely shown his true colours by 2020. Anyone who voted for him in 2020 is a contemptible human being and the fact that the election was close shows exactly the effects of modern fascism on the electorate. Having said all that, Joe Biden is an apparently benign piece of poo poo who is totally sold out to big corporate and his only redeeming quality is that he wasn't as bad as his predecessor. That last sentence should win the lifetime achievement award for most 'Damning with Faint Praise', by the way. JustJeff88 fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Feb 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 02:00
|
|
|
Yeah not going to Texas but being willing to work or travel elsewhere in the US is silly, Texas is rapidly changing and at least modern day has never actually been the right wing bastion conservatives pretend it is, it just politically has been dominated by the right. Austin and Houston aren’t bad either, Austin in particular. I lived in San Antonio, it was okay but I wouldn’t recommend it in particular.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 03:38
|
|
|
SpaceSDoorGunner posted:Yeah not going to Texas but being willing to work or travel elsewhere in the US is silly, Texas is rapidly changing and at least modern day has never actually been the right wing bastion conservatives pretend it is, it just politically has been dominated by the right. Austin and Houston aren’t bad either, Austin in particular. Firstly, I don't really need the tsuris. I made my decisions for multiple reasons, I don't regret either and having a tertiary reason of 'poor cultural fit' is a perfectly sensible factor to consider when one has options. I don't like the weather in Texas either, nor do I apologise for that factoring in. Where I am now I did not have a practical choice, but if it were not for money reasons I would be elsewhere. Frankly, I get sick and bloody tired of hearing the so-called progressives admire their virtuous reflection and sniff their own farts when they don't have very much to be proud of. I honestly don't feel kinship with liberals/progressives/leftists (call them what you will) in the US either, so I suppose that it is a moot point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 05:00
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:In regards to Trump, I am going to say something that you are all not going to like... I understand and somewhat commiserate with why people voted for him in 2016. Simply put, he pretended to give a poo poo about the struggling classes. He didn't, of course, but he pretended to while Ms. Hilary was so sure that she would win easily against this horrible parody of a human being and acted as if nothing was wrong because, well, for people in her tax bracket everything is great. Broken down by income bracket, 52% of voters earning less than $50,000 a year – who make up 36% of the electorate – voted for Clinton, and 41% for Trump. But among the 64% of American voters who earn more than $50,000 a year, 49% chose Trump, and 47% Clinton. So you can basically stop blaming poor people for the Trump presidency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 08:00
|
|
|
Yeah, I remember Robert Evans diving into the "little Nazis" who made Hitler's rise possible, and the supporters of the fascists there by and large weren't the working poor. Rather, they were the middle class and others who were insecure about becoming poor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 08:06
|
|
|
Yeah Clinton did worse with the poor than Democrats usually do because, well obviously, but she still did better than Trump. Even with poor white voters iirc (Trump did better with whites without a college degree but I'm pretty sure that skewed toward the more affluent ones). Poor people are poor so they generally vote for parties that want to help the poor. Middle class people afraid of becoming poor often see helping the poor as a threat to their own social status and fascists are very gung ho about preserving "naturally occurring hierarchies"
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 08:33
|
|
|
Something I noticed with Libertarians is that they are either super edgelord Atheists or rattlesnake juggling fundamentalists and rarely anything in between. I know that prosperity gospel influences libertarian beliefs in religious people but I'm surprised both extremes can coexist under the same tent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
I've been banging this drum for a long time now; the statistic about "white people without a college degree" voting for Trump is a red herring used to blame poor whites for Trump. ("Lacking a college degree" is an incredibly stupid way to define the working class besides.)Trump got the old white people who were able to make a middle-class or even upper-class living without a college degree. These statistics also obscure the fact that poor people are much less likely to vote to begin with. It gets especially insane when you hear Blue MAGA liberals saying things like "Red states deserve natural disasters because they voted for Trump." Setting aside the essential inhumanity of it, they're typically talking about states with a higher-than-average concentration of minorities and poor people generally, and voter suppression comes with the territory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 22:15 |
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I'm not going to go so far as saying that the conservatives should suffer and the others not, but as in any major tragedy it is hard to decide who is a victim of the system and who is gleefully and knowingly propagating it. I will confess that, twice in my life, I have had professional opportunities offered to me in Texas and I have turned them down in large part due to... let's call them "demographic differences". Among other things, my commie Jew foreigner arse is not going to get over in Texas, of all places. Just so we're clear, you're suggesting that Texans as a whole are responsible for their own suffering because of your past, mistaken assumption that a white British guy would experience racist discrimination in their state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:31
|
|