Lmao. This idiot just said helping black people hurts white people, and vice versa.

I don’t necessarily think you have to get on board with a party. In some ways, I understand the plight. A lot of politics caters to the rich, and if we have a two party system and they both show disdain for you, it feels like that’s it. However, a lot of party politics can be done at a local level, and while that is a generic answer, it is the answer. You can change your local party to cater to you because you make up a bigger proportion, and you can get your neighbors on board too. Show up and question your local politicians and they will be forced to change or they can be replaced.

It’s a boring answer, but it’s unfortunately what you have. Focusing on the big politics isn’t feasible.

I think both sides are up to their ears in corruption. Does that make me a loser?

Yeah, probably. Centrism is a loser ideology.

You are really upset that I called you pal and that you misread things. I am sorry for you.

You are really upset that I called you pal and that you misread things. I am sorry for you.

You either have an illegal but very popular activity run by “the black market”, or a legal but very popular activity run by the government and capitalists.

Right there.

Still didn’t answer mine yet, though. I apologize for being inconvenient and remembering things you don’t.

Please point out where I said it would stop black market gambling. Please do. I have unlimited time, and you have unlimited disappointment to give me.

I said that black market gambling is STILL A THING, so your point that making it legal is somehow stopping it is wrong, and obviously so because that’s how words work, pal. So, anyway, please feel free to revive my brain with your refutation because I so carelessly didn’t say the thing you said I said.

You know you can make gambling against the law by going after the brokers and not the betters, right? Gambling destroys lives and pretending that legalization is the only thing stopping black market gambling is brain dead.

It’s telling that you blame control for why more people are betting because anyone that studies addiction would tell you you’re a fucking moron, and I think you should remind yourself of that fact on an hourly basis, because you have only one idea for banning gambling. Consider that banning gambling by going after brokers is going after those that profit from the whole thing, and you’ll realize that, woah, it will have a positive effect.

If no one cares, why didn’t they disclose they used AI?

That doesn’t make any sense.

Paying workers more is fine, but you’re saying that the costs for reproduction should come from parents, and then you’re saying they should come from the rich. People without children should contribute to childcare costs, and they are incentivized to do so, too, because children are important to pretty much everything. By having the government fund childcare, the rich do contribute more.

Whatever you said is inconsistent.

NSFW. This links to the meme page with a citation to the original comic, but this page contains a description. The meme page is SFW, but the citation is NOT.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/im-hungry-i-gotta-poop#fn1

Don’t look at it, it’s exactly what you think it is, but y’all wanna not listen, then go ahead.

Did somebody get theiw feewings huwt?

Fuck Nazis, I hope they all get the Nazi punched out of them.

I see where you are coming from. I also think you are wrong.

While there are sexual connotations behind naked ridership, there is also several other connotations involved that are meant through the scene. I see the scene as meant to demean and dehumanize the human being ridden, a literal replacement for an animal. Nakedness is often used in media to show vulnerability and, especially in this context, power differentials, and since the rider is clothed, viewing this as sexual doesn’t feel like a correct interpretation. Using a child as the rider might make sense in some contexts (say, as a metaphor for innocence when enjoying an activity through the suffering of the exploited), but I do kind of agree that the current scene doesn’t meaningfully change with aging the character up.

But if they strike, the poor workers won’t get paid!!! \s

Clearly, you don’t have the maternal instincts either.

I mean… I doubt the veracity of these claims.

Like, you could pay with cash and get the same level of benefit. While the serial numbers are tracked, movement of money is pretty random once it hits a customer’s hands, and that level of randomness might as well make anonymous.

Additionally, good luck getting crypto through anything that isn’t centralized, which removes the supposed benefit of the technology. If you want to get crypto anonymously, you’ll have to buy it from people instead of exchanges.

Plus, crypto comes with the inherent downside of premiums to exchange currency. You might as well just tax yourself 5% extra, but that’s probably generous considering how awfully volatile crypto can be.

And the fact that this uses fucking VISA should be a huge red flag for privacy, lmao. Congrats on not amalgamating your customer profile by purchasing our VISA^TM brand prepaid credit cards. They still made money off you.

Overall, you’d be better off asking someone a city over to buy what you want off the internet and paying them cash.

Crypto is, at best, a stupid hobby that got out of control, and, at worst, a huge scam people are desperate to find a legitimate use for and still can’t.

I think that’s a fair stance to take. I just don’t believe that the state protects us from the wealthy, though I do think it could. But, I would rather dissipate the power the state holds so no one can use its mechanisms against the people, and whether that be by distributing power away from centralized sources or through some other means, such as periodic redistribution, I think they’re workable solutions.

But, I’ll admit my stance is a bit too rigid, but take that as my optimal solution, and not my only acceptable one.

Groups can organize without a leader. Rules can exist without rulers. It is silly to say the only thing protecting us from the wealthy is the state, when the wealthy are far more protected by the state.

But, I do understand what you’re saying. What happens when someone breaks the rules? Who enforces those rules? But when the wealthy capture the state (and that is ultimately the goal of the wealthy), the rules will still be unenforceable against them. So, I’d say it kinda fundamentally falls apart eventually.

But, that’s not an answer. The real answer is that it is on the citizens to topple corrupt states, but they don’t necessarily need a state to make that possible.

The rich didn’t create themselves, buddy.

Ain’t no fucking way you’re not a troll.

Why do we need to replace all the moderate Democrats that did EXACTLY what you said you wanted them to do?

Because they didn’t do what I wanted them to do. Obviously. Did you not read?

Do you have any actual PROOF that Schumer engineered the capitulation? Your personal opinions on the matter aren’t really what’s under discussion here. Just vague and unsubstantiated accusations, pretty Trumpian if you ask me.

Like, either he sucks at his job and needs to go or he coordinated this and needs to go.

Idk, man, it’s literally right there.

You should try harder?