ChrHONKicals of Clownworld

Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
> A woman gets herself knocked up, and then she's gotta devote half her body's resources to supporting the baby, which is not so hard within a community, or even a harem, but is exceptionally difficult alone.

Are they in the woods alone or no? Humans are social animals by evolution, and it's immutable that living with others is the default and living totally alone is the aberration. At some point it becomes like judging a duck by how well it climbs a tree.

But let's play out the scenario. It's actually hard to get and stay pregnant. It's more likely the women wouldn't have even had sex near ovulation. Then, the lone woman living in the woods might not be able to stay pregnant due to stress. The woman who had sex with the living-in-the-woods guy might decide she doesn't want to risk her life (assuming we're somewhere in antiquity) to become a social pariah (assuming her society is patriarchal and has a taboo against bastardy) and might decide to use some herbal abortion recipe. Before the 20th century or so, people were less sentimental about babies because half of them didn't survive to childhood anyway, so it was common to leave them in the woods or throw them in a river if they would be an undue burden due to resource scarcity or a defect. If the lone woman somehow gives birth and survives, her choice between:

- keep the baby and risk both her and them dying

- leave the baby somewhere in the woods, but have a better chance of surviving to get into a situation where she can have more in a stable environment and have other kids

From a strictly genetic standpoint, fucking a bunch of random women is a decent strategy, I suppose; but there's a reason humans became K-strategists compared to other animals like lizards or fish, and are most successful as collectives the more they are K- rather than r-strategists. A society that's based on a bunch of detached, non-committal men, and women with a bunch of kids to random, uninvolved men is going to be a shitty society. They're not going to pass knowledge down, there's no clear and stable hierarchy, there's no order for inheriting power or wealth.


> If people interpret the garden of Eden story to be blaming women for things, that's unfortunate. This seems like something similar to how that verse about Sodom and Gomorrah was trumpeted by fundies as proof that gay people are evil.

1 Timothy 2:12-14 "A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a wrongdoer."


> But that seems to me what is at the core of the idea of action heroines acting like men; they aren't written to have to deal with the burden of pregnancy or child care, or with any thought to future generations. So they go and do all the things that men do, but it ends up ringing hollow as a role model for girls, who if they tried to live like that would find themselves turning 30 and regretting a lot of their choices.

The same argument could be made about male action heroes. Is Spider-Man going to be unhappy and unfulfilled for the rest of his life because he didn't have a family*? Is the fact Batman doesn't get married and have kids* being a bad role model to boys?

* for the sake of argument, because I know some nerd is going to read this like "ACKSHUALLY in issue #42069 of the poopoo timeline in the peepee universe, Spider-Man/Batman has a family and I own the rare Pop Vinyl of his son!"

Family can add more complexity or motivation to a character. The Punisher is only The Punisher because he had a family for mobsters to kill in the first place. I still stand with my opinion that it's toxic that female heroes NEVER have families, with the implication that a family is lamesauce action and individuality destroyer, but not every female character needs to have a family either, like not every male character needs to have one. It's just another factor in creating diverse characters.
 

humon

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
Canada
We got into the topic of being alone in the woods because I was trying to provide a reason for why women would have a genetic predisposition to compromising their principles to stay inside the overton window. The explanation is that men have a much easier time flying solo than women do, because the cost of reproduction for a man is low, if he's not bound in a relationship to his baby-momma.

I haven't read the Book of Tim. Looks like that verse is the reason why it's not so popular. I guess that's one of the "bathwater" parts of Christianity, just like the weird stuff in Leviticus. At the same time, the part about the woman being deceived and becoming a wrongdoer is interesting, if you think about the strategy of communist subversives to target women in a democracy and use them to pressure the men into joining their activism. Going back to those white woman cringe videos... I'm not going to say 'Timothy is right about women', because you can't silence an entire group for the flaws of some of them. At worst, Eve is a double-edged sword, because if not for her, Adam would still be living like an ape. The effect that women have on motivating men is the key to the garden story. They can bring out the best in men, or bring out the worst, depending on how they align themselves.

What I'm saying about heroes is that men can get away with a lifestyle that doesn't work so well for women, because a man can start a family at any age, even if he's old and wrinkly. The winning strategy for a man is to spend his teens and 20s developing his skills so that when he's 30 he can have his pick of women. So if he wanted to, Batman could in the future find a woman half his age and marry her (while continuing to fight crime, if he protects his wife's identity well enough, for as long as his back and joints hold up). Batgirl doesn't have that same option, so she has to decide while she's still young what her future is going to look like, if she's going to sacrifice a family to fight crime full time, or settle down early and only support Batman part-time (which means Robin is the one being groomed to take over the bat-cave when Batman retires).
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
"Memorial Day is Cultural Appropriation"

I was gonna leave well enough alone today and shut the fuck up for a few hours, but I saw a post my partner showed me from his Instagram. The picture literally just said that, and the poster went into an explanation below about how former slaves invented Memorial Day and if you celebrate it as a wypipo without "educating" other wypipo on its origins, you're Literally Hitler.

I actually never looked too much into Memorial Day, so although my first thought was "CAN'T HAVE SHIT IN DETROIT!" I but on the brakes because hey, maybe they could be right.

First off, commemorating dead soldiers is a very old thing and basically every culture does it in one form or another. It's an ancient thing to do, so it definitely existed prior to the American Civil War. For as long as humans have been having wars, we've been honoring the people who died in them. Warriors are sacred because they keep the rest of us alive to do our silly little tasks, though that meaning has become highly diluted as of recently due to corporate interests, systemic exploitation of the underclass, mechanization of warfare, the decline in respect for the military, and meaningless forever-wars. Still, people join the military to better their situation, provide for their family, and there's vastly more nuance to the situation than "Billy Bob joined the Marines to shoot dem terr'rists and blow up brown kids!"

Although the various wars are driven by greed at the highest levels, in modern times, people who join the military and go into the conflict zones are admirable because they either want to affect positive change for themselves and their families and the military is the best way for them to do that, or they're motivated by a desire to improve lives for people in other places, and largely they do help civilians who are being oppressed by a bigger bad. It's not a black and white issue. Even when someone's kind of brainwashed and they're like, "I want to join the military to keep America free," I contend their heart is in the right place and they're not evil people.

ANYWAY

I found there is a celebration called Decoration Day that came from former slaves, and it's recognized in Liberia, which is an African country that was formed as part of a repatriation project. The goal of Liberia was to give former slaves - who were from Africa, but they didn't know where, and their heritage was a mix of places so there wasn't one place they could go back to, and they were culturally alienated from their roots - a place to live where they could start over, do things their way, and not have to deal with wypipo.

However, there's also another celebration called Decoration Day, which is totally unrelated and has totally different customs, as it came from Scottish settlers in Appalachia and involved pre-Christian Gaelic customs. The Confederates had their own Memorial Day, which was unrelated to the Memorial Day as we know it in America, which is different from South Korean Memorial Day, which is different from the Commonwealth's Armistice Day.

So yes, former slaves had Decoration Day and maybe that is worth raising awareness for, but Memorial Day is not culturally appropriating it. Anyone can celebrate Memorial Day if they decide it's important to them, they can celebrate it however they want, and no one is excluded from it or from celebrating it.

It always seems to be wypipo who always start screeching about "____ IS CULTURAL APPROPRIATION" and it often turns out they have their facts wrong or twisted, they're extremely Anglocentric, and they're always speaking on behalf of people. They make up rules like one person says "wypipo can't wear corn rows," and someone else (who probably wants to wear cornrows), is like "wypipo CAN wear corn rows, but they can't call them something different to obfuscate the fact they're cornrows," etc. If you want to wear cornrows, just wear the damn cornrows. If you don't like someone for wearing cornrows, just don't interact with them.

ALSO


“With Memorial Day Weekend coming up, tomorrow people start driving in the biggest automobile days of the year. I’m sorry to say the gasoline prices that you will be confronted with are far higher than they were just a short number of months ago where we had gasoline under $2 a gallon. Remember as you’re watching the meter tick, and your dollars pile up, how great of a job Donald Trump did as President. Soon Russia and the Middle East will be making a fortune on oil, and you will be saying how good it was to have me as your President. Wasn’t it great to be energy independent, but we are energy independent no more. Shame, shame, shame. Other than that, have a great Memorial Day Weekend!”

ORANGE PRESIDENT 2024
 
Last edited:

humon

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
Canada
I always thought the real cultural appropriation was when the Europeans came up with Nov 11th (Remembrance Day in Canada, Armistice Day in the states), they were ripping off Memorial Day. See, Americans were shocked by the brutality of industrialized warfare before it was cool. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the date of Memorial Day was chosen because Americans were totes jelly of the late-May long weekend that Canadians were getting on Victoria Day (Also known as May Two-Four, heh). So the yanks put their long weekend a week later on the calendar. Cultural appropriation! Canadians totally invented beer and barbecue at a lakefront cottage!

Cultural appropriation stories are just clickbait. I'll go with the last five words in your post: Just don't interact with them.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
> We got into the topic of being alone in the woods because I was trying to provide a reason for why women would have a genetic predisposition to compromising their principles to stay inside the overton window. The explanation is that men have a much easier time flying solo than women do, because the cost of reproduction for a man is low, if he's not bound in a relationship to his baby-momma.

It's easy to say "bcoz genetics" because it's creates the illusion of not having to work through the influences of society. To isolate genetics, we'd have to observe a person with zero societal influence, which would almost screw things up more because humans are meant to be part of a group and they become retarded if they're isolated. If there are genetic influences, instances such as women who have a masculinized upbringing having life histories that are masculine (ex. Hypatia, Albanian sword virgins), men who have a feminized upbringing having feminine life histories (ex. modern soyboys, Bacha Bazi), and that Ukrainian girl who was raised by dogs growing up acting like a dog, show that social influence can override them.

Biological realities definitely necessitate solutions. However, humans have built cultures all over the world in different environments because our relative lack of hard-coded instincts makes us able to adapt. There are animals like salmon that need to have a specific type of environment to reproduce, and if they don't have it, they die. We live in a different environment than we did 200 years ago and I'd argue that forcing the patriarchal family model in an environment where it's not the optimal solution is negative. Sharing work and childcare, or stay-at-home dads aren't "the collapse of civilization", they're humans trying to be successful in the environment they find themselves in.

Rightoid dudes on the internet are borderline suicidal because they want a tradwife, 8 kids, and a farm, but they work some entry level job or wagie job that doesn't allow that and are single and childless. Those same dudes will see some guy walking around with two kids in a carrier and another kid in a stroller and call that guy a cuck because he's "not supposed" to be doing that, it's the woman's job and she's probably at work getting fucked by "Jamal" or she's out with her friends acting like an irresponsible teenager.


> I guess that's one of the "bathwater" parts of Christianity, just like the weird stuff in Leviticus.


I noticed people who have tried to persuade me to be Christian with apologetics do it by leaving shit out. I have more respect for the people who are honest enough to say "Yes, actually I think you should be killed for reading Tarot cards, wearing men's clothing, and having premarital sex." It's not like that's not what the Bible says...


> At the same time, the part about the woman being deceived and becoming a wrongdoer is interesting, if you think about the strategy of communist subversives to target women in a democracy and use them to pressure the men into joining their activism.

I still think this is a result of women being raised to be sheltered people-pleasers and entering the world as adults, naive and without an ethical and political education that prepares them to have power in the world.

It makes total sense to me that someone who was excluded from conversations about politics and ethics would go to college, see "This is feminism and critical theory. This is for you," and jump in with two feet because, hey, what do they know?


> Batman could in the future find a woman half his age and marry her (while continuing to fight crime, if he protects his wife's identity well enough, for as long as his back and joints hold up).


That dialogue doesn't take place as far as I know in the mainstream Batman works, so as far as anyone knows, he doesn't plan to have kids. I also question the practicality of "woman half his age". Some people do that and it has its pros and cons, but I was walking through a graveyard and noticed that even people born in the mid 1800s had spouses that were within 1-10 years of their age. It depends on the individuals and where they are mentally, and probably what constitutes "a good relationship" for them.

The obvious downside to the "half his age" scenario is that if a 50 and 25 year old get together, that's not bad for that time. If they stay together, though, she's gonna eventually be a 45 year old with still a lot of life ahead of her, but with a 70 year old husband who can't keep up with her and she's gonna have to watch deteriorate. If it's a 40 and 20 year old, she'd be 50 instead of 45, but 50 still has room for activities. She just raised her kids, and might not get any kind of respite before potentially be a nurse for an elderly husband.

Bruce Wayne is ridiculously wealthy, and that's the main case where the pros can outweigh the cons for certain types of people with certain goals. A 50 year old gorillionaire is more attractive to their pick of women than a 30 year old making $40k a year. Historically, too, the marriages with a large age differences happened among the wealthy because their marriages were mainly diplomatic, and not for compatibility or love like peasants were more likely to do.


> Batgirl doesn't have that same option, so she has to decide while she's still young what her future is going to look like, if she's going to sacrifice a family to fight crime full time, or settle down early and only support Batman part-time.

Batgirl hypothetically has a few options. She can go all-in with the family thing and go back to fighting crime when her kids are teens and wouldn't be totally fucked if she were to get killed. She can marry a guy who wants to be a stay at home dad, take off for the time she's pregnant and a bit afterward (I'm assuming the Wayne Enterprises would give her generous maternity leave package). She can also marry a guy who also does his own thing and hire nannies on Wayne money. She can also not have kids if she's perfectly fulfilled fighting crime - an important job, and let's not pretend it's the same as being a Social Media Management Engagement Client Peepee Poopoo Executive - and just never had the desire to have kids. She could have surrogacy. When you have money, the sky's basically the limit.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
Commiethot

Remember this gorl?


I didn't know/care who she was, but apparently she's a Twitch thot and she's getting roasted for buying a $2 mil condo.



They're always these idiots who don't have real jobs.

Being a "content creator" isn't the same as being a legit self-employed/owner-operator, but it's like, there's some kind of mental brain rot that occurs when someone gets used to getting money and not getting the pay stub that shows the federal government takes a quarter of it. When someone's privileged, they don't see that every other week from the time they're 16 and have all those years to think about it.

Biden's new tax rules have clamped down on the "gig economy", where the government used to look the other way to some extent when people were selling on eBay, driving Uber, selling pictures of their ass holes, etc. They were "technically" supposed to report everything over $500 they made, but it was the dot com boom and the government didn't want to fuck up this sector that's really fluffing the economy nice. I support tax loopholes for everything and everyone, so I personally would oppose the decision, but I hope these idiots - who voted for it lmao - get fucking reamed and I hope they don't see it coming.

I like Twitch and there are good channels on YouTube, but alleged "work" of this nature gives a disproportionate platform to the most annoying and psychopathic losers on the planet, who are the exact opposite types of people who should have a platform. And people will fucking listen to them and give them money because they're a bunch of manipulators and narcissists who ACKSHUALLY need to be dropped on an island with no radio or internet so they'll shut the fuck up.

They don't need platforms, they need Medieval shut-the-fuck-up devices on their heads
8545
 
Last edited:

humon

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
Canada
Just came across the term 'Faucism' today. Genius. Say what you will about Dr. Fauci, he made the trains run on time.



"Everything within the state. Nothing outside the state. Nothing against the state" - Anthony Fauci
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
Gender Equality Is When Debt Slavery

Every time I think I've hit the bedrock of the clownworld, something proves me wrong. It just keeps going.

And I wonder...

Surely there are people on the left - actual anarchists and liberals - who see this shit and also see it for the insanity that it is. If not now, when is the tipping point when the political compass/spectrum starts filling up with people who see the oligarchical corporatist authoritarian gaslighting for what it is and say "Fuck this shit."

Do self-described liberals look at something like this and think, "This is the most inane bullshit thing I've ever seen, and it goes against my beliefs, but I'm gonna put up with it to oWn tHe FaSciStS"?

If so, you got the wrong "Fascists", first off. Where are the Occupy liberals who were protesting corporate abuse in the 00s?

Is it a thing where they're like, "It's totally stupid, but complaining won't do anything. I'm just one person."?

Anyway, here's the thing. The newest layer of clownworld.

download (49).jpeg

What does this even mean??????????

Everyone's charged 24% interest?

It makes me think of a story where a guy and his wife both applied for Apple credit cards and his credit limit was 20x higher than his wife's.

"For example, women tend to make less money than men, and with income being a significant factor in determining credit limits, it wouldn’t be surprising to see that women might end up having lower credit limits than men, Schulz said.

'The simplest potential explanation for some of the stuff that came out this weekend would be a disparity in income,' he said. 'If one spouse makes a lot of money and the other spouse doesn’t make as much, it doesn’t matter how you file your taxes, or what your net worth is. The income you put on the application drives a lot of your credit limit.'

Spending habits can also have a big impact on credit score and credit limit, which is another reason why spouses could end up with significantly different credit limits.

'If you have a person who has a high income, and spends a lot of money on a credit card on a regular basis, they may get a higher credit limit than somebody with a high income and a high credit score who just doesn’t use their card all that often,' Schulz said. 'So that could be the reason why you see disparities between, you know, two individuals who otherwise seemed like they would be likely to get similar credit.'"


I have heard that women spend more as a demographic than men. Usually I see it framed as a derogatory, like "w*men be shoppin". According to the traditional arrangement, men are responsible for buying houses and cars, and carry the debt for those, while women are responsible for necessities like groceries, cleaning supplies, and everyone's grooming supplies, which can easily top a few hundreds per month. The "pink tax" is also brought up, and I think it's somewhat bullshit because, for example, nothing's stopping women from using conditioner for shave cream and buying men's razors.

Maybe my perspective is skewed by the fact I'm working class and these things were never expected of me, but when someone complains about how much money it costs to be born with a clitoris, they cite stuff like makeup, overpriced haircuts, shapewear, bridesmaid's dresses, nail salons, shooooes, and faaaaaashion. Oh my fucking god, here's the world's smallest fucking violin for self-imposed problems. The empathetic way to put it is this: women are brainwashed to care about, and pay money for, really pointless shit.

Here's some wisdom. If you don't genuinely enjoy makeup, just don't wear it. Other people don't like it? They're just gonna have to deal with it. If you don't want to spend $70 on a haircut, wear your hair in something you can either cut yourself or is simple enough for Supercuts to not fuck up. Wear your natural color or something you won't fuck up if you do it yourself. Are you really lumpy? Do you have a FUPA? Literally just don't wear stuff that calls attention to it if you're insecure. If you have a normal (Greek statue or "temple carving") body, just wear the clothes. Go to Target and buy a $3 thong or some boyshorts. No pantyline. It's magic. You got hip dips? Does your stomach have a small curve a bit below your navel? Don't worry about it. Are you worried about cellulite? Don't, also people are actually into that (r/slightcellulute).

Its all a scam.

Also, fashion is a racket and completely made up, and it's fucking up the environment. Especially vEgAn shit. Leather boots/jackets last a billion times as longer and are biodegradable. Vintage plastic shit is meh...they're already here so might as well keep them out of the landfill as long as possible.

8547

Also. Your home does not and is not supposed to look like a staged property or a catalogue. People live there. Set it up however works best for yourself and anyone else who lives there. So long as things are sanitary, your home doesn't stink, and people aren't wading through trash or hoard, the decor doesn't matter.

But Kathy, that sounds really ghetto.

Yes of course it does. The whole fucking point of beauty standards is to emulate the upper class idle woman who doesn't have a job, and has time and money for all kinds of beautifying treatments, and at this point, she didn't even birth her own kids let alone raise them. The whole point of home flexing is to show off social status.

Reject social climbing, return to having working class pride.

ANYWAY

The credit card industry has been a major factor in the fucking-up of society. I'm not a puritan. It's difficult. I've resisted the "free money" or "all my shit is just $200 a month" mentality, and I've still been in major debt twice. Both times, it's been due to being unemployed and basically being too stupid to not hang on to my old standard of living.

$100 in 1980 is approximately equal to $325 today. For a single person, that's like steak, bacon, eggplant, and caviar. My grocery budget is like $90, which is up from $70 due to the Biden presidency.

I wish Christcucks would get as agitated about usury and moneychangers in the temple as they do about what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, what they do with their bodies, or how they dress. Usury of the majority of the population has done more detriment to the population than the 1-5% of the population that is queer.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
Update on "OK Boomer" e-Girl

download (50).jpeg

Remember when Bernie Sanders said millionaires needed to be taxed, then he became one, then he moved the goalposts such that only billionaires needed to be taxed?

Here's how to tax wealth fairly:

- Abolish federal income tax (I also support states abolishing their income tax and using a sales tax, like Florida).

- Create a national sales tax that applies only to consumer purchases (applying the tax to business-to-business transaction would likely increase the overall cost of goods).

- People who have more money will naturally spend more and pay more tax. Poor people who have less money to spend will pay less tax. It doesn't even have to be a lot. A 3-5% tax is just a few cents on the dollar for common kinds of purchases, but can equate to thousands of dollars for very high-ticket purchases.

No one on that side can apparently decide what "rich" is. People who make 4 figures think people who make 5 figures are "rich". People who make 5 figures think people who make 6 figures are "rich", etc., etc., etc. and it really looks ridiculous when millionaires are saying "I'm not rich, just billionaires are rich."

So, it seems very naive to me for someone who doesn't live in the real world to assert "I just want higher taxes for the billionaires" and then vote for politicians who raise taxes on people in the low 6 figures.

These tax hikes are being pushed by the same people who want to raise the minimum wage. Yes, by the time we're paying Scandinavian-style taxes, you'd need $15/hr simply to maintain the same level of poverty.

Why do these schemes for "helping" poor people never involve letting them keep their paychecks...?

Cutting taxes and eliminating pointless spending has been shown time and time again to do nothing but benefit Americans.

Why do they spin it? The Trump tax cut gave me a tangible $100 extra a month. That's great. Instead of acknowledging that's a breath of fresh air for people under certain levels of income, I remember reading how the Trump tax cuts were terrible because people who made more money (e.g. they had a larger percentage of their income taken in the first place) were getting more money back.

8552
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
Jack Dorsey is a Clown

8554

I don't even know that public schools teach about Africa, but basically: once upon a time, France, England, and the Netherlands colonized Africa and made the borders based on their discretion, not the ranges of existing tribes and ethnic groups. That, and mismanagement of resources due to government corruption, is the predominant reason why Africa is so fucked up and there's constant civil war and coups every 27 seconds. Nigeria has had 4 governments since the 1960s when they were released from British rule.

The Nigerian president made a tweet, which Twitter deleted for allegations that it was inciting ethnic violence, and he fired back saying they weren't enforcing their guidelines on violent speech on the opponent's part.

The tweet in question: “Many of those misbehaving today are too young to be aware of the destruction and loss of lives that occurred during the Nigerian Civil War. Those of us in the fields for 30 months, who went through the war, will treat them in the language they understand.”


"Several Twitter users said they reported the tweet for inciting violence in the predominantly ethnically Igbo region.

The comments in the tweet were taken from a speech the president had made earlier, in response to a wave of arson attacks against several electoral offices.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/05/nigerian-president-faces-growing-criticism-after-security-system-collapse
'I think we have given them enough latitude. They have made their case, they just wanted to destroy the country,' he said, appearing to reference secessionist agitators. 'Whoever wanted diversion or destruction of the system at this point, I think will soon have the shock of their lives,' he also warned.

Nigeria’s information minister, Lai Mohammed, dismissed Twitter’s action. 'Twitter may have its own rules, it’s not the universal rule,' he told reporters. 'If Mr President anywhere in the world feels very bad and concerned about a situation, he is free to express such views.'"



In response, the Nigerian government "indefinitely suspended" Twitter access in the country.


"Twitter said in a statement that it is 'deeply concerned by the blocking of Twitter in Nigeria.'

'Access to the free and #OpenInternet is an essential human right in modern society. We will work to restore access for all those in Nigeria who rely on Twitter to communicate and connect with the world,' it said in a statement."


As far as the Nigerian election, I don't have the information to comment on who is right and who is wrong, or who should rule. It doesn't effect me and my opinion is irrelevant anyway. However, on the matter of ethics of information and speech, Twitter's response to this is directly related to their response regarding the 2020 US election, which does effect me. The relevance and actual impact of my opinion? Still somewhat questionable, however.

I agree with both Lai Mohammed's quote regarding the president's speech and the statement Twitter released. People should be able to say what they want on a "free and open internet". The interesting thing about that, coming from Twitter, is that in practice, they do not actually support a "free and open internet" as we're seen with COVID and the 2020 election. Twitter was vigilantly removing posts, flagging as "misinformation" anything that contradicted the DNC's agenda or views, and de-platforming people for having the wrong views (not unique to just Twitter), while doing fuck all about both illegal child porn, and explicit (however, legal) adult content on a platform that allows minors to join.

If Twitter is going to have the opinion that a "free and open internet" is a human right, then why do they continue to abuse people's human rights by censoring and curating the "right opinions" instead of just being an impartial fucking carrier like they're actually supposed to be?
 

humon

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
Canada
To a psychopathic post-modernist corporation, 'human rights' is just an attack line you can whip out any time someone pushes back against your bullying. It's the equivalent of hiding behind the teacher. It's like how every time a Canadian prime minister tries to chide China about Uyghurs or whatever other horrible shit they're doing, China immediately replies, "Yeah, but what about what you guys did to the Injuns?" As if they give a shit and it's at all relevant. Of course they don't, and it's not, but they think that with this kind of argument they can save face and convince liberal-minded people to stop caring about China's abuses.

I would be cool if every country banned Twitter. Or better yet, if people altogether just stopped using it by their own choice. Or at least if journalists and politicians stopped taking Twitter so seriously, that would be great. Back in 2016, all these shocked journalists kept talking about echo chambers and how they got the election wrong because they weren't hearing all sides. Then a year later, it was back to the same groupthink as before, with no sign of anyone having learned anything, and I was left scratching my head. Then you realize they were never serious, it's all just a big performance.

If enough people throw tomatoes and boo them off stage, maybe they'll finally stop pulling this crap (recall the image of Ceaucescu being booed off stage). Or likely, they're incapable of learning and they just need to go out of business and be replaced by other companies that are managed more competently.

I was watching a conversation between Coleman Hughes and Daniel Schmuckburger the other day, and while a lot of it was mapped territory from previous conversations, one thing I got out of this one was how we had a transition from zero sum to positive sum in modernity that made kinetic war unnecessary, but there's still one zero sum resource out there, which is attention. And so that's the new battleground. Everyone who uses social media is a little piece of territory to be either invaded and captured, or bombed into a glowing crater so that no one else can have you.

This is how gods do battle: by converting or killing the followers of their rival gods. Because the way to kill a god is by causing people to stop praying to it, thus starving that god of attention until it disappears.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
> 'human rights' is just an attack line you can whip out any time someone pushes back against your bullying

The example of Canada vs. China is perfect.

China is actually putting Uyghurs in concentration camps and forcing them to go through Communist indoctrination.

The issue with Canada and First Nations is totally different. The French who fought the Native tribes for over a hundred years as an equal adversary (who, by the way, were fighting each other for long before that) have nothing to do with anyone in the modern Canadian government. Any continuing inequity of First Nations people in modern Canada is not equivalent to China's active, intentional, systematic genocide against the Uyghur.

However, because the normies are primed to respond to words that, at this point, don't have real definitions by design so they can be slapped on anything for maximum moral triggering without having to explain why; and they are acculturated to the idea of collective guilt and bearing the cross for the actions of abstract, unrelated people; normies are just okay with China saying that and being like "Oh snap. They owned us, right." without realizing how objectively incorrect that comparison is.


> would be cool if every country banned Twitter.

Twitter and every other platform would be great if it didn't censor people for wrongthink and "curate content" to promote the leadership team's ideology.


> they just need to go out of business and be replaced by other companies that are managed more competently

That would be the free market solution. The government is very comfortable, though, with utilizing big tech as their surveillance and propaganda wing because too many Americans thinks "shall not be infringed" ONLY applies to the government and doesn't realize the interplay between corporations and the government.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
Former Treasury Dept. Official, Brian Stelter suspended from Twitter due to claims he was the gimp from Pulp Fiction

"Former Department of the Treasury public affairs specialist Will Upton had his Twitter account suspended Sunday evening after making a joke about CNN anchor Brian Stelter.

Responding to a video of Stelter lobbing softball questions at White House press secretary Jen Psaki, Upton wrote, “Fun fact… @brianstelter is The Gimp from Pulp Fiction,” followed by a GIF from the film."

Huh?


 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
Planarians don't know/care how privacy works


I saw this WaPo article on my Firefox shitpage and wondered if I could be the wrong on this one, because I wrote a post concerning PHI but did not mention HIPAA at all. I read the whole article and there seems to be confusion between legally-binding requirements and the request of an individual or other entity on their private property, which then becomes a matter of trespassing or disorderly conduct. The other point of confusion is the logistic feasibility of processing customer vaccination records, which is subject to state regulations and FTC regulations.

"Some Americans, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), are balking at such questions and are claiming that asking about or requiring proof of vaccination is a violation of the HIPAA federal privacy law.

'Vax records, along with ALL medical records are private due to HIPPA rights,' Greene recently tweeted, misspelling the law’s acronym."


You can tell this is objective, impartial reporting by the way it's worded.

My post said "[V]accination status is PHI, which people are under no obligation to share casually. It's between them and their provider, and they control who has access."

If some rando asks you about your health, there's no legal penalty on them for asking, but you're also not legally penalized either way if you share the info or if you don't. Being legally penalized is different from Planarians R' Us or (more legitimately) a nursing home requesting all visitors to either be vaccinated or wear a mask as extra precaution. Where HIPAA comes in, is if a health org shares your information in ways you did not consent to and ways not granted by the law, which they inform you of.

"And, experts emphasized, there is nothing in HIPAA that bars asking people about their health — including vaccination status — or requiring proof that the information is accurate.

'It’s not really a prohibition on asking, it’s a prohibition against sharing,' said Kayte Spector-Bagdady, an associate director at the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine at the University of Michigan. The law, she added, 'doesn’t mean you never have to tell anyone about your health information.'"


In my older post, I went on to say "Medical discrimination is illegal, so asking directly for information that may lead to discrimination is not allowed in most circumstances."

I wasn't wrong necessarily but medical discrimination moreso pertains to staffing decisions and very little to other decisions like who's allowed on private property. This is an area that will vary by state, so some are more strict than others. The law firm linked below is from California, whose laws are more strict on employers, but some states only forbid discrimination if the medical condition qualifies as a disability or would fall under gender-based discrimination.


"According to the EEOC, employers would not be violating the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act as long as they were careful about what vaccination-related questions they asked. A possible violation might be if an employer’s attempt to find out why a worker didn’t get vaccinated could elicit information about a disability."

The whole article is relevant so I'm not going to quote it. I'm not going to go into FEHA because that's extremely California-specific. However, what is common, is that the employer can request health information in so much as it's relevant to the job. They can't ask "How healthy are you?" but they can ask specific questions related to safety and the ability to perform the job, such as "Are you able to lift and carry 50 lbs?" or asking potential truckers if they have narcolepsy. Normal jobs can't just ask if someone has had chlamydia when it has nothing to do with their job tasks.

Depending on the state's definition, they may be required to provide "reasonable accommodations" to a qualifying person unless doing so would produce "undue hardship".

"It’s equally important to be mindful of state laws, Cohen said. Although it doesn’t violate federal laws to ask, those laws don’t make asking a requirement. 'If the state says you can’t ask, then I think employers are likely to be governed by that state law,' he said."

"In the absence of a state-level prohibition, Gatter said, private businesses are free to operate within the bounds of existing law. While they can’t refuse service based on race or gender, there isn’t a law saying 'businesses cannot discriminate on the basis of your vaccination status with respect to covid during the pandemic,' he said."


The thing that's glossed over, here, is that perhaps the Wal-Mart greeter isn't subject to HIPAA or the FTC if they request proof of vaccination and look at it with their own eyeballs without storing it, and if they call the police for trespassing for anyone who doesn't comply, of if the mom-and-pop store puts the vaccination information voluntarily in an spreadsheet or ledger book (more on that later). However, as soon as the health information is transmitted electronically, be that via email, a file server or cloud, or a site-to-site VPN, the majority of it tends to fall under either HIPAA or FTC regs.

The FTC is primarily concerned with preventing customer abuse. For example, collecting health information and releasing or selling it without informing the customer. As part of the responsibility to distribute the information ONLY with parties the customer agrees to share it with, it comes along with the responsibility of preventing it from being collected by those the customer did not agree to share it with. The FTC has data handling and cyber security regs and recommendations, such as anonymizing the data as much as possible, and storing and transmitting it securely. One of these factors is transparency with the customer, often in terms of an agreement that lays all this out, which requires customer consent, even if they quickly scroll and click "I agree" with out reading it.

This is the point where the logistic feasibility comes into play. In a small business that keeps records strictly locally, they could get away with verifying vaccination status. At the same time, they risk losing up to half of their potential customer base either due to those people not being vaccinated or being unwilling to disclose.

For a place like Wal-Mart, Target, or a mall to verify the vaccination passes without storing the data, they would need to individually check every customer's coof card every time that individual came in. It could result in huge lines, and a loss of business for people unwilling to wait in line, vaxxed or not, and up to half of customers who either don't want to be vaxxed or don't wish to disclose. They would have to have a constant police presence to escort undesirables from the property.

If a chain store decided to check coof passes at the door and create a database that's distributed with other stores and its partners, they might have the line problem, albeit for a shorter time; however their bigger problem becomes that every node in the system now requires IT infrastructure that would comply with HIPAA or with FTC regs they would predominantly fall under. That shit's expensive and requires upkeep.


Furthermore, and I was thinking about this as I read the comments of people talking about getting vaccinated for the safety of others...

If the vaxx works, why are you chimping out because others choose not to get it?

As I said before, if all the high-risk people are vaxxed, there's virtually no significant danger to the low-risk people who choose to be non-vaxxed.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
Hoplophobes on suicide watch

8557


"The judge, Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, wrote that sections of the state’s penal code that defined assault weapons and restricted their use were 'hereby declared unconstitutional and shall be enjoined.'"

"In a statement late Friday, Gov. Gavin Newsom called the ruling 'a direct threat to public safety and the lives of innocent Californians.'"


Sorry dude, the only people affected by an "assault weapon" ban are innocent Californians.

You think [gang that's fucking up LA] cares?

This is pretty wild and it might be hard for some people to wrap their heads around because it's such an unexpected fact, but criminals don't obey laws. Pretty crazy. Maybe they should just make murder illegal?

I'm convinced American gun rights are here to stay.

"BUT IN AUSTRALIA THEY BANNED GUNS AND THE MURDER RATE WENT DOWN"

8558
8559

Do you want your low crime with or without gun rights?

If not, then be my guest and move to Australia, or the UK, or Canada. If these countries are so great, why don't you just move there?


Gun Control is Classist

I may've said or alluded to it before, but people who claim personal self-defense isn't a right are likely privileged to have never needed to defend themselves.

Being the poor that I am, I found myself in the position of living below an ex-con and her boy toy. We had an ongoing dispute about stolen property and it came to a head when he broke my door and threatened to shoot me. I had my own gun, and I told him that. He immediately fucked off. Fortunately, this was around the time I was closing on a house, but I had to live in a storage unit for a bit. There were people selling drugs, using drugs, paying for prostitutes, people in and out of these units at all hours, etc. People were getting fucked up in the hallway and pissing/vomiting.

We could lock our unit from the inside but had to go outside to use the toilet, and if the toilet was locked or fucked up (with un-flushable heroin shits) I'd just have to go in the mens room, piss in a urinal, or piss behind the car. I was walking probably 10 blocks to take showers at the gym (largely in the evening). It wasn't for that long and I never had an altercation - being an introvert has its advantages - but holy fuck I was glad to have a way to defend us for that time.

Most of the left anarchists I personally know own guns, and from conversations I've had with them, we've interacted with similar stuff at points and feel similar ways about it.

Also, Black gun ownership is higher than White, per capita. Also, let's not forget gun control was never an issue until the KKK (literally) Democrats were concerned about the freed slave population. Through the 1980s, even, Black people were the main targets of gun control.

Is this an "insurrection"?
8560

Gun control targets whoever is the most threatening to the ruling class, regardless of race, sex, belief, etc. These various authoritarian regimes - Nazi, Commie, Fascist, don't matter - always disarmed people to prevent dissent. Isn't it crazy their own police and armies were still armed to the teeth? Why would that many people ever dissent? Could it be the regime was total fucking bullshit and knew it was total fucking bullshit, so they took pre-emptive action against the people who would revolt due to the regime being total fucking bullshit?

Therefore I can only assume the people who are saying "Nobody needs a gun" are probably upper-middle class, sheltered, living with their parents, etc. or are still innocent and idealistic.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
Speak of the devil...

It's kind of amazing how silent everything has been about a bill that proposes modifications to HIPAA that would cause it to protect patient data less.


"Modifications to HIPAA will cause more problems than solutions. Here is a brief overview of the most troubling modifications:

  1. The proposed rule would massively expand a covered entity’s (CE) use and disclosure of personal health information (PHI) without patient consent. Specifically, it allows unconsented use and disclosure for 'care coordination' and 'case management,' without adequately defining these vague and overbroad terms. This expanded exception would swallow the consent requirement for many uses and disclosure decisions. Consequently, Big Data (such as corporate data brokers) would obtain and sell this PHI. That could lead to discrimination in insurance policies, housing, employment, and other critical areas because of pre-existing medical conditions, such as substance abuse, mental health illness, or severe disabilities that carry a stigma.
  2. HHS seeks to lower the standard of unconsented disclosure from 'professional judgment' to 'good faith belief.' This would undermine patient trust. Currently, a covered entity may disclose some PHI based on their 'professional judgment' that it is in the individual’s best interest. The modification would lower this standard to a 'good faith belief,' and apparently shift the burden to the injured individual to prove their doctor’s lack of good faith. Professional judgment is properly narrower: it is objective and grounded in expert standards. “Good faith” is both broader and subjective.
  3. Currently, to disclose PHI in an emergency, the standard for disclosure is 'imminent' harm, which invokes a level of certainty that harm is surely impending. HHS proposes instead just 'reasonably foreseeable' harm, which is too broad and permissive. This could lead to a doctor disclosing your PHI because you have a sugar-filled diet, you’re a smoker, or you have unprotected sex. Harm in such cases would not be 'imminent,' but it could be 'reasonably foreseeable.'"

"These modifications address standards that may impede the transition to value-based health care by limiting or discouraging care coordination and case management communications among individuals and covered entities (including hospitals, physicians, and other health care providers, payors, and insurers) or posing other unnecessary burdens."

They're not exactly opaque about it.

I didn't know what "value-based healthcare" was but this is the definition: "Value-based healthcare is a healthcare delivery model in which providers, including hospitals and physicians, are paid based on patient health outcomes. Under value-based care agreements, providers are rewarded for helping patients improve their health, reduce the effects and incidence of chronic disease, and live healthier lives in an evidence-based way."

I'd say that sounds good on the surface. A glaring flaw in the way the modern-age handles healthcare is that it doesn't incentivize patients to be healthy, meanwhile the leading causes of death are largely related to conditions that people subject themselves to. It's cancer and heart disease not, like...bear attacks, starvation, and cholera. Since states of poor health are more or less voluntary, the unhealthiest people consume the most healthcare, and insurance is no longer allowed to incentivize health by providing the lowest rates to the healthiest people, it translates to everyone paying the same general price in most circumstances despite the healthiest people being the most economical demographic.

The stated goal of the measure doesn't invalidate the potentially problematic pieces.

"Creating an exception to the “minimum necessary” standard for individual level care coordination and case management uses and disclosures. The minimum necessary standard generally requires covered entities to limit uses and disclosures of PHI to the minimum necessary needed to accomplish the purpose of each use or disclosure. This proposal would relieve covered entities of the minimum necessary requirement for uses by, disclosures to, or requests by, a health plan or covered health care provider for care coordination and case management activities with respect to an individual, regardless of whether such activities constitute treatment or health care operations."

In English, the current state of HIPAA says that when healthcare entities provide information to one another, they provide only what is necessary to carry out the care activity. They want to change it so, potentially, the full chart could be disclosed or electronically transmitted.

"Replacing the privacy standard that permits covered entities to make certain uses and disclosures of PHI based on their 'professional judgment' with a standard permitting such uses or disclosures based on a covered entity’s good faith belief that the use or disclosure is in the best interests of the individual. The proposed standard is more permissive in that it would presume a covered entity’s good faith, but this presumption could be overcome with evidence of bad faith."

"Professional Judgement" has a legal definition, which is: "The application of an amalgam of professional knowledge and experience to derive appropriate resolutions within prescribed standards, ethics and objectives."

"Good faith" also has a legal definition: "A term that generally describes honest dealing. Depending on the exact setting, good faith may require an honest belief or purpose, faithful performance of duties, observance of fair dealing standards, or an absence of fraudulent intent."

It's more difficult to prove something wasn't done "in good faith" than it is to consult an industry or profession's best practices. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as they say...

"Expanding the ability of covered entities to disclose PHI to avert a threat to health or safety when a harm is 'serious and reasonably foreseeable,' instead of the current stricter standard which requires a 'serious and imminent' threat to health or safety."

I can only assume this would apply mostly to people with mental illnesses. There is a difference between someone saying "I'm going to kill myself," and someone saying "I want to die." I've definitely been in the latter category many times and I think my life would be very fucked up - involuntarily hospitalized, rights "abridged", perhaps someone would be given legal "conservatorship" of me, etc. - if I, a person experiencing an emotional state I knew the whole time was a transient state but was nonetheless painful, were treated the same as a person who was actively in the process of preparing for suicide.

It could also apply to the difference between, on one hand, statements like "I wanted to kill them" and descriptions of transient emotional state like "I felt like shooting them", "I'll be glad when they finally die", and on the other, statements of intent like "I want to kill them," "I'd like to shoot them," or "I want to watch them die."

This laxity seems like something that could be used with existing "red flag" laws to expand the definition of whose lives are allowed to be fucked up.

It could also discourage people from seeking psychological care because it could destroy the non-judgmental atmosphere of psychiatry that creates the honesty and disclosure, and the "safe space" to say very socially unacceptable things, that some people have to deal with

"Thus, for example, adopting a 'serious and reasonably foreseeable threat' standard could further enable a health care provider to timely notify a family member that an individual is at risk of suicide, even if the provider cannot predict that a suicide attempt is likely to occur 'imminently.' For an individual who poses a threat to public safety, a 'serious and reasonably foreseeable threat' standard may afford a health care provider sufficient time to notify a person, such as a law enforcement official, who is in a position to avert a serious harm that may occur and ensure the safety of the individual and others. By referencing mental and behavioral health professionals in the proposed definition of reasonably foreseeable, the Department does not mean to imply that individuals with mental or behavioral health conditions are more likely than other individuals to commit acts of violence. As the Department has stated previously, mental illness is not proven to be an effective predictor of gun violence, and individuals who are experiencing mental illness are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than perpetrators."

Hey, isn't that what I just said?

"Section 4004 of the Cures Act added section 3022 of the PHSA (42 U.S.C. 300jj–52), the 'information blocking' provision. Section 3022(a)(1) defines information blocking as a 'practice that, except as required by law or specified by the Secretary pursuant to rulemaking, is likely to interfere with, prevent, or materially discourage access, exchange, or use of electronic health information. If a practice is conducted by a health IT developer, exchange, or network, the definition requires that such developer, exchange, or network knows, or should know, that such practice is likely to interfere with, prevent, or materially discourage access to, exchange of, or use of, electronic health information. If a practice is conducted by a health care provider, the definition requires that such provider knows that such practice is unreasonable and is likely to interfere with, prevent, or materially discourage access to, exchange of, or use of, electronic health information."

Yay. Apps.

Overall, I think this is largely an adaptation to facilitate mobile health apps. That's not a bad thing if someone consents to using an app and is fully informed of how their information will be used, and who will have access to it. However, the worst case scenario I see is people being indirectly extorted into using the apps, because using an app to show diet habits, exercise, weight tracking, sex habits and fertility, etc. will result in a healthcare savings versus not using any apps. You're free to use the apps like you're also free to pay more for healthcare or insurance. Health is good to incentivize but there are less creepy ways to implement something like this, like a discount for getting STD tests, having a yearly body comp test (more accurate than BMI), or passing a certified fitness test. If the results are good, it can be assumed the person's health habits are good.

On a more nefarious level, I think this seeks to take down some of the barriers that prevented the coof app from becoming a reality. Since we're "in a permanent pandemic" and the vaccines are said to be an "indefinite" thing, I can see an ongoing effort to proceed toward everyone keeping, basically, a life history on their phones, and then have their privileges be determined by this. It would be a very indirect version of a social credit system.

The glaring contradiction to this is that the same side of the political spectrum that's saying they want more control of our health information is also the same side that's promoting normalizing obesity larger bodies. Either that is really ignorant mental gymnastics, or we're actually dealing with eugenic population control. A medically normal weight and BF% on a fit individual can look "chubby" compared to the Hollywood standard, and that should be normalized. However, instead of distinguishing between overweight, underweight, and a healthy ideal; the "body positivity" movement keeps the Hollywood ideal, and lumps everyone outside of that in the same group such that a fit 5'5", 140 lb person is in the same category as someone who's 5'5" and 240 lb. There's so much of "body positivity" that doesn't make sense to me, coming from the side that wants to do “value-based” healthcare. MAKE IT MAKE SENSE.

Anyway.

It's not ALL bad, but overall, I hate it. HIPAA was fine and, if anything, we should have more control over our information. I want to sign off on any fucking document that leaves the walls or local network of any practitioner I've ever been to. Send me the fucking PDF email and I'll sign with my finger on the phone.

The defense for the “good faith” decision revolves around care workers being able to alter their answers to questions posed by caretakers based on a possibility that the truth may create unintended consequences for the patient. This, in itself, isn’t a terrible thing, but I’m concerned this could be used as a vehicle for snitching, or conspiracy to circumvent otherwise reasonable parental consent for minors’ gender transition — I don’t mean the “threatening to disown” parents, but the “this decision has permanent effects; have you explored less extreme options?” type of guidance. In fact, I suspect those are the major motivations for creating this proposal.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
GOOD ECONOMY IS WHEN NUMBERS GO UP

planarians.png


"For the first time during the pandemic, most Americans approve of the economic conditions in the United States, according to a CNN poll conducted by SSRS that was released Wednesday."

Huh?

"A key risk, however, is whether the economy can grow briskly without setting off runaway inflation. If prices spike, the Fed could be forced to raise interest rates more quickly, which could derail the recovery.

Still, JPMorgan Chase (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon recently told CNN Business that he hasn't felt this optimistic about the US economy in a 'long time.' In a letter to shareholders, Dimon said the economic boom 'could easily run into 2023' because all of the government spending and Fed stimulus could continue for that long."


> runaway inflation

Damn that's crazy /s

> "long time"

What?

> government spending and Fed stimulus

Yup.


Food is getting more expensive.

"Restaurants including Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. CMG 1.21%▲ and Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc. CBRL -1.71%▲ have raised menu prices. Executives say they expect more price increases this summer as costs remain elevated for labor, commodities and transport.

'We’re in a period of unprecedented commodity inflation,' Unilever Chief Executive Officer Alan Jope told investors Monday. He said Unilever would recover some of those costs in part by selling smaller packages of some foods at the same price as a larger size."

"Prices for cooking oils, wheat, corn and other ingredients are surging due in part to bad weather abroad and strong export demand. Labor shortages are hampering operations at stores from Starbucks Corp. cafes to supermarkets, prompting many employers to raise wages. Costs to transport food products are up by as much as 25% from a year ago for some food makers because of high demand for shipping during the pandemic coupled with a shortage of truck drivers."

"Chipotle said it recently raised prices by roughly 4% in much of the country after earlier raising prices on delivery orders. Shake Shack Inc. raised prices on delivery orders by 5% in February, following a roughly 2% across-the-board price increase in December. Executives said they might raise prices again to account for higher labor, and meat prices."



"Practically every aspect of the economy saw a rise, including motor vehicle insurance, housing, airline fares, recreation and household furnishings. Gasoline, which rose a whopping 9.1 percent in March, now costs 50 percent more than this time last year."

THE NUMBERS ARE GOING UP!!! THE ECONOMY IS GOOD!!

"According to the Congressional Budget Office, government spending comprised a whopping 31 percent of GDP during fiscal year 2020 — far, far higher than the 20.4 percent average of the past 50 years."

Someone commented:

"The current inflation is due to an imbalance between supply and demand produced by the pandemic. Demand slowed down and supply slowed in response during the pandemic. Demand is now rising but it will take time for supply to get back to normal. This inflation is not structural and will resolve itself in time. No need for panic."

I agree this isn't 100% due to the US government or even Biden, personally, because we're totally interacting with a conflict between supply and demand. Remember in the early stages of MUH PANDEMIC when farmers were throwing away whole harvests and dumping milk down the drain, because demand was down and it would only go bad? Suddenly, restaurants are re-opening and people are going back to work, so the demand is exceeding the level of production that these...producers...have re-calibrated their output to. Asia still has a semiconductor shortage, which is effecting auto manufacturers, which in turn is increasing demand, and therefore prices, for used cars. The same concept caused the huge slam in ammo prices -- purchasing was leisurely under Trump, then suddenly everyone wanted ammo due the riots and vahhhrus, and manufacturers needed time to order supplies and train employees to meet the new demand.

Nobody can snap their fingers and fix those things. It's just the reality of "things not being perfect all the time".

However, like the CNN article cited, although GDP has almost recovered, everything smells different...it smells wrong. It's not because the economy is actually doing any good, it's because the Fed keeps flooding the economy with currency and attempting to keep a tenuous handle on the interest rates. The economy was certainly going to take a hit either way, but judging by the miraculous improvement in the "peacetime" economy under Trump, he would have done a better job to stabilize the situation, put the brakes on, choose your aphorism. The unnecessary, ideological spending bills are a huge culprit and if Trump had been re-elected, those simply wouldn't exist, at least with the shamelessness they currently do.

Maybe this is what we deserve? A lesson learned. Some people could have their feet chopped off by Kamala Harris herself and still think this administration and still screech "AT LEAST IT'S NOT ORANGE MAN!!". People in the middle, who are less opinionated, might be reconsidering if Trump was really that bad. Say what you will about his speaking style, orange tan, and whore behavior; but goods were cheap, there weren't people yeeting their children over the border en mass, there were jobs and industry returning to America, and even working-class Americans had more money in their paychecks.

There's another thing that I find bothersome. Unemployment is still high, yet workplaces are desperate for workers. Everywhere is hiring, offering higher wages, and crazy signing bonuses.

But where are the workers?

Are there that many people - for example, young people who would appropriately work at a McDonalds or Taco Bell - who think they're in danger if they're going back to work?

Are the government benefits that good?
 
Top Bottom