houseoftolstoy @[email protected]

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.

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.

What I am stating does not factor in the welfare state that allows for the dysfunctional broken homes to exist. That breaks the whole dynamic, thus creating the problems we see in many western countries with welfare states.

So the loss of SNAP benefits for many will bring about the necessary balances needed for these dynamics to work. But I am not counting on this being permanently changed.

Yes, this does not work the same for women, because if a man wants to have children, he cannot have his wife be so devoted to her career that she is not willing to give that up to have children. Maybe this is not "fair" for women who want both the career AND children, but it is also not "fair" that men have to make something of themselves in order to be in the position to have a family.

That is just reality, regardless of whether you think it is fair or not.

Women who complain that men "do not have to sacrifice their career to have a family" fail to realize that for men, the choices of career and family are not mutually exclusive, but mutually inclusive. These women do not realize that men can't afford to NOT have a career if they want relationship success with women. Women seek men who earn more, thus having a career elevates a man in status and gives him a chance to be selected.