houseoftolstoy @[email protected]

Reddit sucks and will continue to suck. Believe nothing that has 10K or more upvotes to be organic. It is absolutely astroturfed and manipulated to the core.

I saw r/politics go from pro-Bernie and anti-Hillary to full on Hilldawg lovers the moment she got the nomination. I recall that ShareBlue literally bought out that sub, so it should be no surprise that we saw the ultimate results.

In short, Reddit sucks ass and is full of fraudulence and homosexuality.

I bring up John Thompson because he checks all the boxes for the shills to circle the wagons. He is a black Democrat, which is one of the sacred cows in more than one way for their side. Keep in mind that George Floyd was in the same area and had glowing praise in spite of the fact that he was also no one worthy of praise. What a difference it makes to have shills working behind the scenes to keep the narrative in check!

Covering for him does not need to be denial or "fact checking," but also in the form of memory-holing and silencing any discussion. I would not be surprised if that did happen with him already on the more mainline subreddits. But even so, he is certainly not a politician who is on the national radar at this time. Probably won't ever be either, because he is so bad that his own party disowned him.

What I have concluded is that the full scale shilling only takes place on the most prominent parts of the website. The politics, science, and other normie subreddits that have millions (or allegedly millions) of subscribers get the full court press of shilling and mod abuse. So a politician like John Thompson will be absolutely berated when there is organic discussion taking place, but if he ever had national prominence, there would be all the stops pulled to cover for him.

They actually called him out for being a piece of shit. And this was not some bastion of right wing politics, it was a local subreddit for a city in Minnesota. Almost all of them have left wingers, no matter the state or region.

This got me thinking. Yes, I am well aware of the shilling and fakery on the site, but it was quite a stark difference to see these opinions be on display, as anything that goes against the Democrat party gets snuffed out with downvotes and mod fuckery.

While Reddit is a whole lot of fake and gay, I found an interesting example of what happens when shilling is not in full force. For the background, I heard of a real piece of shit politician named John Thompson. I mean real piece of shit, this state representative tried to play the race card when he was stopped for not having a front license plate. Turns out he did not have an Minnesota license either, but a Wisconsin one.

Anyways, I go to the less mainstream subreddits, and I was surprised.

In short, demographics is far more important than these people would have you think. In fact, I am quite willing to bet that most of them are more leftist and therefore would adamantly deny that this could be a factor at all. Because that would go against their ideology of their urban planning vision being the panacea to many issues.

Due to that ignorance, I have a hard time taking them seriously even when they make good arguments about city planning. You have to account for all factors.

In fact, maybe as some of these examples become less and less homogenous, we may see crime issues surface. You know, the very issue we are promised becomes less with a walkable city. Yes, there is a theory about "eyes on the street" that claims walkable cities have less crime due to their walkability. I will not be shocked if this theory also does not account for demographics.

Maybe I am speculating in some ways. But I know that the US has far different demographics than many of the cities that are brought up as positive examples. So even if these advocates got everything they wanted in changing the city design, I would not expect the end results to turn out just like a city in Japan or the Netherlands.

Yes, I am skeptical that making a city more "walkable" will somehow reduce crime by itself. Again, they fail to account for demographics.

It is not so much that cities with racial diversity could never have better design for walkability, but let's not kid ourselves about the cause and effects at play. When you are soft on crime, people are going to respond in other ways. If there is no movement to fix the crime issue, people will seek other ways around the issue. Thus, we get more and more car centric city designs by voters and those who are otherwise unwilling to deal with the crime issue.

For example, this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGjc-gsh834

The guy brings up 3 cities, Seattle, Atlanta, and Detroit. One of these things is not like the other. Guess which one? And guess which one was considered more "walkable?" Yes, Seattle. Do you think he was going to be willing to address the elephant in the room on racial demographics? Nope.

Gee, I wonder if there is going to be less desire to build for "walkability" if people are afraid to walk around the neighborhoods.

Been going down the rabbit hole on urban planning channels, out of curiosity given my suspicion that they are being pushed to the forefront as a Trojan horse to the Agenda 21 end goal.

Having cities be less car centric is not something I oppose, but those who are pushing for this model always use cities that just so happen to have a greater amount of racial homogeneity than the typical US cities. They just seem to think that they only factor to account for is the city layout, and nothing else.

Making a poll here. What do you think will happen this coming winter with Europe?

Just thought of something. If those that think that the sanctions against Russia are harming the Russian economy in any way also think that Russia was responsible for the Nord stream pipeline attack, then they are just confirming how braindead they are.

This might not apply to that many people, but the legacy media outlets sure want you to buy this and must really have low expectations for their audience's intelligence.