houseoftolstoy @[email protected]

@White_Rabbit "People need to move where there is opportunity" only really works when the government does not put it's huge thumb on the scale with mass immigration policies. You can't pretend that you can operate as if we have small government policies when it is most certainly not the case. You have to get the government smal before you can operate as if it is.

@WashedOutGundamPilot in 20 years, a child will become an adult, who has a world of possibilities. In 20 years, a dog will be dead and it will be a footnote in someone's life.

Anyone who dares try to make a pet as the equivalent of a child should not be given any respect whatsoever.

@sickburnbro open borders is an idiotic idea, but if you are going to attempt to carry out your idealistic vision, you should operate with some critical thinking.

On a tangent on libertarians, they can also be short sighted on marijuana legalization. Did Colorado become more libertarian after legalization of marijuana? Or did it just attract potheads who are more likely to follow leftist propaganda?

@sickburnbro this is the worst kind of libertarian. Ask him about taking away the welfare state, and he will say, "Don't worry, we will get rid of that too!" All while not taking a moment to think about how we cannot even get support to get rid of the welfare state among the native population, so how in the hell will we convince the 3rd worlders coming here specifically because we have a welfare state.

A non-retarded libertarian should at least agree to get rid of welfare before open borders.

And back to "walkable cities," if we get more Iryna Zarutskas being murdered, people are rightly going to avoid public transportation when they know the government is not going to punish these murderers properly.

You need a high trust society to have "walkable cities" be a realistic prospect. And if you don't have high trust, you need severe punishment as a deterrant. Anyone who does not support either of these options is a fool or an enemy.

The US currently has far too many cases of criminals being let off when they should face severe punishment. And in many cases, more severe than they already get. The death penalty is a strong deterrant, regardless of what the midwits who say "life in prison would be worse than death."

They don't factor in that the murderers tend to not think the same thing, given how they fight to delay the death penalty. Because it turns out a lot of murderers are stupid, and need more fitting punishments.

Perhaps he is right that the excuses being used are no good for current American city planning, but I have a strong feeling if you were to tell the Bike Faggot the real reason why there is little support in the US for "walkable cities," he would call you racist.

For example, I have seen a number of posts regarding the apparent conflict on the right with Zionists (who somehow claim to be authentic MAGA and accusing others of not) vs non-Zionists such as Tucker Carlson. While this might be something worth keeping yourself aware of, you most likely will not see this topic come up in real life conversations, even among people who are right wing. Because it turns out a lot of what goes on with this sort of thing does not affect most people in any way.

The thing about the whole "touch grass" comment that is quite funny is that it becomes a game of accusing others of being online too much while claiming you yourself are not on too much.

Regardless of who is truly online too much or not, it is important to be interacting with others in the real world to get a pulse on what people in real life are talking about. Because often times what is happening in online spaces does not reflect much on what is going on with people in real life.

@Will2Power @Red-Potato Correction, "Israel" is referring to Jacob, not Abraham. But your point is still correct.

@nomebullyyou "Emotionally unavailable" is a term that sounds like a whole lot of nonsense. And besides, the women who claim to want "emotionally available" men seem to have a hard time finding them because it turns out that they prioritize other traits in men over this supposed one. If they did go for such men, there would be far less women complaining about being pumped and dumped. And that would not be a problem if women did not sleep with men before securing commitment.

If they simply fund it the moment the shutdown ends again, then my theory will certainly be wrong. It would at least give people a taste of what is to come when it all collapses. But I do not expect the people who are dependent on the system to understand that. So I doubt it would work as a teachable moment, as those that know are already not dependent, and those that are are dependent because they are not capable of learning this lesson.

I have to wonder if the SNAP benefits pause is part of a plan for controlled demolition by the government in order to try and stave off a full rug pull collapse of the system. Perhaps that gives them too much credit, but it should be obvious to anyone who understands the runaway spending problems with our government that this cannot be maintained forever. So it would be better to have cutbacks in smaller doses rather than all at once.