Why incels take the “Blackpill”—and why we should care

A growing number of incels are NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training). That should concern us all.

See full article...

 

[O/Siris]

Efficacy... what a joke. Here's efficacy:

• Lost the electoral vote
• Lost the popular vote for the first time in 20 years
• Spent nearly $1.5 BILLION in a losing campaign and STILL NEEDED MORE
• Minority in The Senate
• Minority in The House
• Democrat Party nearly broke
• Reduced or even minority vote in just about every demographic there is.

Democrats searching for their own "Joe Rogan." They already had one. JOE ROGAN.

$20 million being spent to determine the "syntax" for speaking to men.

But it was sexism. Uh huh.

 

[orwelldesign]

There's the lie. Right there. You hide behind intentions without providing the least evidence of actual behavior. No wonder you had to opt out earlier.

Oh, no, I don't mean you're likely to change my mind. Not whatsoever. You've a long, long history of being in the wrong, usually in ways consistent with the RWNJ crowd.

True or false: sexism is a huge problem in the USA, even today. Women make less than men do for the same work, there's a huge problem with rape culture, and qualities considered admirable in men like assertiveness are considered "bitchy" in women.

True or false: racism is a huge problem in the USA, even today. Black men are wildly overrepresented in the prison population, black youth are treated as adults disproportionally to the number of white youth so treated, etc. Black families were negatively affected by things like redlining and couldn't build generational wealth. Black neighborhoods are where city planners choose to put polluting industry. Etc, etc, etc. Denying those things isn't some enlightened perspective -- that denial is putting your head in the sand.

Do I think you're stupid? No, I don't. I think you're misguided, and have swallowed whole some things that are contrary to basic reality, like the fact that consciously or not people prefer people more like themselves. Which is the most basic DEI principle. I mean, when symphonies started auditioning behind a curtain (so that the judges couldn't see the gender expression of the candidate) the number of women playing in said symphonies skyrocketed. John Smith really does prefer to hire John Smith over Jane Smith over Jamal Smith over Jamal al'Islyami. John Smith might not even be explicitly racist. Might not consider himself racist, even. Yet racist outcomes are the almost inevitable result!

...

I've asked you three times in the last two pages: which companies relax their job requirements based on "protected characteristics"? Name three. Hell, name one company that does. Go on, I'll wait.

You can't, because no one does that. Given two equally qualified candidates, it results in better outcomes for a team to have more perspectives. Again: if you're a team of white dudes in your 30s, having the Black perspective, the handicapped perspective, or the queer perspective makes a better team. Heck, that team of white dudes in their 30s? They probably don't take visual impairment into account designing their product, resulting in products that are biased against the elderly, consciously or not.

...

You seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that someone must be explicitly racist, sexist, or homophobic to enact policies and do their hiring in prejudicial ways, when that's not the case, nor what anyone is arguing. You don't have to be a Klansman to end up doing prejudicial hiring -- hell, in this thread someone argued that "parents who want their children to do well" were directly opposed to "parents who want to celebrate their Blackness." Is that person explicitly racist? Probably not. But that line of thought very much is racist, and it's been proven out. Identical resumes, barring the name, favor stereotypically white names over stereotypically black ones.

...

But, again, the most basic question- which companies relax their requirements to allow underqualified minority applicants to get the job over straight white men?

 

[O/Siris]

Oh, no, I don't mean you're likely to change my mind. Not whatsoever. You've a long, long history of being in the wrong, usually in ways consistent with the RWNJ crowd.

True or false: sexism is a huge problem in the USA, even today. Women make less than men do for the same work, there's a huge problem with rape culture, and qualities considered admirable in men like assertiveness are considered "bitchy" in women.

True or false: racism is a huge problem in the USA, even today. Black men are wildly overrepresented in the prison population, black youth are treated as adults disproportionally to the number of white youth so treated, etc. Black families were negatively affected by things like redlining and couldn't build generational wealth. Black neighborhoods are where city planners choose to put polluting industry. Etc, etc, etc. Denying those things isn't some enlightened perspective -- that denial is putting your head in the sand.

Do I think you're stupid? No, I don't. I think you're misguided, and have swallowed whole some things that are contrary to basic reality, like the fact that consciously or not people prefer people more like themselves. Which is the most basic DEI principle. I mean, when symphonies started auditioning behind a curtain (so that the judges couldn't see the gender expression of the candidate) the number of women playing in said symphonies skyrocketed. John Smith really does prefer to hire John Smith over Jane Smith over Jamal Smith over Jamal al'Islyami. John Smith might not even be explicitly racist. Might not consider himself racist, even. Yet racist outcomes are the almost inevitable result!

...

I've asked you three times in the last two pages: which companies relax their job requirements based on "protected characteristics"? Name three. Hell, name one company that does. Go on, I'll wait.

You can't, because no one does that. Given two equally qualified candidates, it results in better outcomes for a team to have more perspectives. Again: if you're a team of white dudes in your 30s, having the Black perspective, the handicapped perspective, or the queer perspective makes a better team. Heck, that team of white dudes in their 30s? They probably don't take visual impairment into account designing their product, resulting in products that are biased against the elderly, consciously or not.

...

You seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that someone must be explicitly racist, sexist, or homophobic to enact policies and do their hiring in prejudicial ways, when that's not the case, nor what anyone is arguing. You don't have to be a Klansman to end up doing prejudicial hiring -- hell, in this thread someone argued that "parents who want their children to do well" were directly opposed to "parents who want to celebrate their Blackness." Is that person explicitly racist? Probably not. But that line of thought very much is racist, and it's been proven out. Identical resumes, barring the name, favor stereotypically white names over stereotypically black ones.

...

But, again, the most basic question- which companies relax their requirements to allow underqualified minority applicants to get the job over straight white men?

You act as if you've EVER had a serious discussion on this. Nope. The clearest example is how hard you're working to not discuss what the DNC are doing about David Hogg. Which, BTW, is the example you're claiming I didn't give. They actually have gender-assigned seats on their executive committee, which I've already illustrated.

 

[orwelldesign]

You act as if you've EVER had a serious discussion on this. Nope. The clearest example is how hard you're working to not discuss what the DNC are doing about David Hogg. Which, BTW, is the example you're claiming I didn't give. They actually have gender-assigned seats on their executive committee, which I've already illustrated.

So of course you bypass the aggregate in service of your agenda. Should the DNC have done that? No. But I never said they should have, either. Of course you hang your conclusions on one thing, unwilling or unable to address the systemic problems I'm talking about.

Of course you ignore the majority content of my posts, because it puts you in either a very bad light from ignorance, or from denial, or from outright racism and sexism.

 

[orwelldesign]

You act as if you've EVER had a serious discussion on this. Nope. The clearest example is how hard you're working to not discuss what the DNC are doing about David Hogg. Which, BTW, is the example you're claiming I didn't give. They actually have gender-assigned seats on their executive committee, which I've already illustrated.

And "serious discussion"? I literally wrote courses in the 200x era about these subject, in concert with my then employer's legal staff. I'd surmise I've had far more serious discussion about the subject than you have, given at least two of my courses are still in use. I also wrote coursework on ADA compliance, a "DEI" category oft forgotten.

You? You still haven't answered my repeated question: which companies relax their requirements for "DEI" candidates?

Oh, you can't name any, because companies don't do that. The most consideration anyone gets for being a woman, disabled, queer, or POC? If they're equally as qualified as the straight white man, a lot of companies go with the DEI candidate, because different perspectives make healthier, more productive teams. Which, somehow completely unsurprisingly, you've either sidestepped or dodged throughout. That is -- why would a business want DEI initiatives? Because it truly makes for better teams. More perspectives are better. Inclusory language? Straight white men might not even think to think about it. Visual impairment? Same.

Note: equally as qualified. If the job requires a bachelor's degree, there's not a company out there that relaxes that requirement for DEI. Else you'd see "fat black crippled d*kes" <<1>> as tenured professors with merely their GED -- which we don't see.

...

<<1>> I'll see if I can't find a YouTube video of the sketch. The Kids in the Hall are talking about discrimination in hiring and Scott Thompson's character is exhausted by the hiring process, wondering why all they hire is straight, able-bodied white men. "Fat black crippled d*Kes are hard to find!" he ends up snapping, exasperated.

No companies do quotas. No companies relax their requirements. The most they ever do is preference "DEI" candidates over equally qualified straight white men -- which is good for the business. That's coming from the international Corporate perspective, and it's why every single one of the companies has relevant SIGs in the employee chat: to let their queer employees know they're on side. Or their women employees. Or their POC employees, their autistic employees, etc. Different perspectives really do make the company work better.

But... since we've established you don't hire and don't make policy about hiring, it's pretty safe to conclude that your thinking isn't informed by modern best practice. That's as politely as I can say "you don't know what you're talking about."

Because... you don't know what you're talking about. Your thinking on the subject is a caricature.

 

[orwelldesign]

Not going to quote it, because it's across several posts:

Trump won, in large part, because he unashamedly said the quiet part out loud. No dog whistles for him, just hatred, loud and proud. He gave everyone shitty permission to be shitty, and to feel like they didn't have to hide their shittiness.

That's a fact. His rhetoric is straight out of Mein Kampf -- which you're either too ignorant to recognize, or you just don't care. He's lawless, but provided he hurts "them" worse, people will put up with anything from him.

Of course, you're a silly reductivist, incapable of recognizing that in politics, it's never 100% this or 100% that. Heck, it's never even 50% this, 50% that. It usually is more like 20/20/15/15/10/5/5/2.5/2.5. did "leftist purity about Palestine" swing the election by itself? No, of course not. But it was unmistakably a contributing factor. How much of one? Not too much, but it was at play.

Of course, you don't do subtlety or nuance very well, with your insistence that soft sciences like political science have straightforward answers -- but politics isn't math, and never has been. It's messy.

 

[O/Siris]

So of course you bypass the aggregate in service of your agenda. Should the DNC have done that? No. But I never said they should have, either. Of course you hang your conclusions on one thing, unwilling or unable to address the systemic problems I'm talking about.

Of course you ignore the majority content of my posts, because it puts you in either a very bad light from ignorance, or from denial, or from outright racism and sexism.

Moving the goalposts yet again. You asked for an example. Now you've got one. Wal-Mart, Tractor Supply, Target. There are literally hundreds of examples.

The rest of your posts are nothing but personal attacks.

 

[O/Siris]

Not going to quote it, because it's across several posts:

Trump won, in large part, because he unashamedly said the quiet part out loud. No dog whistles for him, just hatred, loud and proud. He gave everyone shitty permission to be shitty, and to feel like they didn't have to hide their shittiness.

That's a fact. His rhetoric is straight out of Mein Kampf -- which you're either too ignorant to recognize, or you just don't care. He's lawless, but provided he hurts "them" worse, people will put up with anything from him.

Of course, you're a silly reductivist, incapable of recognizing that in politics, it's never 100% this or 100% that. Heck, it's never even 50% this, 50% that. It usually is more like 20/20/15/15/10/5/5/2.5/2.5. did "leftist purity about Palestine" swing the election by itself? No, of course not. But it was unmistakably a contributing factor. How much of one? Not too much, but it was at play.

Of course, you don't do subtlety or nuance very well, with your insistence that soft sciences like political science have straightforward answers -- but politics isn't math, and never has been. It's messy.

Subtlety or nuance... Firebombing a Tesla dealership isn't nuance OR subtlety. And it's not even The Right. Looting stores, not right-wing rioters doing that, either. Trying to silence the other side? Once again, not The Right. But it's The Right engaging in hate. Yeah, right.

Your side LOST. By just about every measure there is. And instead of looking into why that happened, you're blaming the other side for DARING to step off that party line you're married to. Democrats and The Left tried to gaslight the nation into line, and it failed. And you're still refusing to see what happened.

So keep tossing your credentials around like that makes reality not reality. It's a terrific strategy for giving The Right a congressional supermajority, possibly as soon as 2026 at this rate.

 

[orwelldesign]

Moving the goalposts yet again. You asked for an example. Now you've got one. Wal-Mart, Tractor Supply, Target. There are literally hundreds of examples.

The rest of your posts are nothing but personal attacks.

Citation very much needed. Wal-Mart relaxes their requirements? Any of those companies? Really? Not buying it. And no, David Hogg and the DNC isn't at all an example of companies relaxing their requirements. Not even a little bit what I was asking for.

You can't possibly be this stupid. And, yeah, there's some attack on your argumentation, because you keep dancing around the meat of the issues, and choosing to engage in nitpicky BS.

About what we've come to expect from you, though -- complete refusal or inability to address substantive arguments, with a very consistent attempt to "gotcha" people on arguments they didn't make in the first place.

 

[Resolute]

The problem, orwelldesign, is that you are arguing against a deeply entrenched, racist viewpoint held by O/Siris. In his mind, the simple act of hiring a minority is evidence of his claim because he holds an inherent belief that a minority cannot be as qualified as a white man.

 

[Aurich]

I definitely don't believe Kamala Harris lost because of sexism or racism. The Democrats lost because they suck. You can count the ways they suck, but it will still be true. That is my opinion, but boy is it not a fringe one. Has anyone checked their approval ratings lately?

Is someone going to call me stupid now?

Because that's not how discussions work here.

On the topic of "how things don't work", you don't get to Blame The Left because someone burned a Tesla. The Democrats are not responsible for every single person who throws a rock.

 

[O/Siris]

Citation very much needed. Wal-Mart relaxes their requirements? Any of those companies? Really? Not buying it. And no, David Hogg and the DNC isn't at all an example of companies relaxing their requirements. Not even a little bit what I was asking for.

You can't possibly be this stupid. And, yeah, there's some attack on your argumentation, because you keep dancing around the meat of the issues, and choosing to engage in nitpicky BS.

About what we've come to expect from you, though -- complete refusal or inability to address substantive arguments, with a very consistent attempt to "gotcha" people on arguments they didn't make in the first place.

Not anymore. But all of them revoked DEI policies that did after the Supreme Court ruled on reverse discrimination against (I believe it was) Harvard.

I guess I should have expected no more than a simple denial from you. Same old, tired gaslighting Democrats have depended on for about a decade and a half, maybe more.

I have always said there ARE forms of encouraging diversity, etc that work. Outreach and mentoring are two such examples. But when DEI devolves into demographic-based quotas, or to alteration of standards based on demographics, and it has in virtually every documented example, it has failed, and yes, I oppose every such case.

Since you're so committed to not discussing anything I bring up, let's try it your way. Show me, please, a single documented example of a DEI policy that does NOT devolve. Are you up to it?

 

[orwelldesign]

I definitely don't believe Kamala Harris lost because of sexism or racism. The Democrats lost because they suck. You can count the ways they suck, but it will still be true. That is my opinion, but boy is it not a fringe one. Has anyone checked their approval ratings lately?

Is someone going to call me stupid now?

Because that's not how discussions work here.

On the topic of "how things don't work", you don't get to Blame The Left because someone burned a Tesla. The Democrats are not responsible for every single person who throws a rock.

You don't think sexism or racism was at play? It's politics. It's complicated. There's never any one reason, just percentages here and there. I know for a fact that leftist purity in re Palestine was a contributing factor to many college age kids not voting for the Democratic candidate.

There's so many contributing factors that trying to pin it on one thing or another is silly. Do the Democrats suck? Yeah. But they suck a lot less

Do I think you're stupid? No. But then again, you don't sidestep, dissemble, or argue against strawmen.

 

[Aurich]

The Democrats lost because they didn't get the turnout they needed.

"We suck less than the other guy" isn't an inspirational message it turns out.

People need to confront this and stop covering for them. Do you know there are people in the Soap Box who told me with a straight face that Joe Biden was the best President of our lifetimes?

 

[Tonkaman]

The Democrats lost because they didn't get the turnout they needed.

"We suck less than the other guy" isn't an inspirational message it turns out.

People need to confront this and stop covering for them. Do you know there are people in the Soap Box who told me with a straight face that Joe Biden was the best President of our lifetimes?

Unfortunately if you're under 40, Biden WAS the best president of your lifetime. The fact that's an incredibly low bar is more damning than anything.

There hasn't been a single "good" president since before Reagan. Everyone after has been a right-wing neoliberal that has mostly just made things worse for the average person. That goes for Clinton, Obama, and even Biden (though to a slightly lesser extent since Bernie's popularity in 2016 started forcing democrats ever so slightly left again).

 

[orwelldesign]

The Democrats lost because they didn't get the turnout they needed.

"We suck less than the other guy" isn't an inspirational message it turns out.

People need to confront this and stop covering for them. Do you know there are people in the Soap Box who told me with a straight face that Joe Biden was the best President of our lifetimes?

Who's covering? Do you see me making excuses? There's a bunch of reasons Kamala lost. I'll be a monkey's uncle if sexism and racism didn't play a role. Sure, so did "we're not as bad as that guy," but then again, so did the leftist purity in re: the Israel/Palestine situation. So did inflation, which ignorant folks think is a lever the President controls. Etc.

Politics is complicated and literally any time someone says "this" is why they lost, they're wrong. "This" is always the sum of many complicated parts, and it's damn near impossible to properly assign percentages. But I'll be dipped in butter if sexism and racism had no contribution whatsoever. 1%? 3? 5? Who knows. But there's not a chance in hell it was 0%.

My favorite part of political discussions is how people treat "the left" as monolithic -- and treat the Democratic Party as though they're "far left" when they're globally center-right. Myself, I'm an actual leftist<<1>>and think it's insane that people think the Democrats are far left. They aren't. Not even close.

Was I one of those people? No. Biden was adequate, but we need an AOC or Kennedy style inspirational youngster to actually espouse some ideals and be for something. Hell, at this point, I don't even particularly care what exactly it is they're "for." Just something.

The Republicans are for something. Now, I entirely disagree with that something; I think heteronormative white Christian patriarchy isn't a very good principle. But at least they've got one. "Say what you want about the tenets of national socialism, at least it's an ethos," to quote Lebowski.

...
<<1>> nationalized health care, UBI, heavily tax advantaging co-ops, free education, a stronger safety net, etc. until our Gini is "top" 15% we haven't done enough to tax the wealthy. The wealthy should be thrilled to pay taxes -- because throughout human history, the answer to rich people getting too rich and poor people getting too poor was the poor beating the rich to death and taking their stuff. Seems it'd make more sense to have the taxman do it than the rabble. At least with the taxman you don't end up substantially shorter suddenly.

I'm happy to pay my tax bill every year, and I also give a significant portion to charity -- and I'm not even rich, just upper middle class. The various safety nets made it so my children didn't starve, when I was suddenly the single father of four. Too many people think it can't happen to them, but it so can.

 

[Aurich]

Unfortunately if you're under 40, Biden WAS the best president of your lifetime.

He was a shit president, who failed at the one important thing he was tasked with.

Anyways, if people really want to argue it I suggest the Soap Box, I'm not really interested in this particular bit of off topic dalliance. I spoke up because people were starting to steer into personal attacks.

Joe Biden sucks. The Democrats suck. It doesn't matter what your politics are you can say these things without someone calling you names for it.

 

[orwelldesign]

He was a shit president, who failed at the one important thing he was tasked with.

Anyways, if people really want to argue it I suggest the Soap Box, I'm not really interested in this particular bit of off topic dalliance. I spoke up because people were starting to steer into personal attacks.

Joe Biden sucks. The Democrats suck. It doesn't matter what your politics are you can say these things without someone calling you names for it.

Compared to who?

Shittier than Trump? Shittier than GW Bush? Shittier than George Bush? Shittier than Reagan? Heck, was he shittier than Clinton?

What one important thing did he fail at? That's a real question, because I've honestly no idea what specifically you meant.

Unfortunately, first past the post means you don't get someone great all the time. "A vote for a lesser evil is still a vote for evil" is a stupid sentiment -- as though the word "lesser" means nothing. That's that ridiculous leftist purity. Voting 3rd party or abstaining was exactly the same as voting for Trump, practically speaking.

Vote for progressive Democrats in the primaries, and vote blue no matter who in the general -- the Republicans have shown exactly who they are, and it's not good.

 

[dzid]

Compared to who?

Shittier than Trump? Shittier than GW Bush? Shittier than George Bush? Shittier than Reagan? Heck, was he shittier than Clinton?

What one important thing did he fail at? That's a real question, because I've honestly no idea what specifically you meant.

Unfortunately, first past the post means you don't get someone great all the time. "A vote for a lesser evil is still a vote for evil" is a stupid sentiment -- as though the word "lesser" means nothing. That's that ridiculous leftist purity. Voting 3rd party or abstaining was exactly the same as voting for Trump, practically speaking.

Vote for progressive Democrats in the primaries, and vote blue no matter who in the general -- the Republicans have shown exactly who they are, and it's not good.

He failed to provide adequate support to Ukraine (via restrictions on weapon use in a number of areas) when it would have made the most difference. Possibly decisive difference. That's the big one for me, and it has had and will continue to have huge repercussions.

 

[Aurich]

What one important thing did he fail at? That's a real question, because I've honestly no idea what specifically you meant.

Keeping Trump from being President again. Sorry, I thought that was kinda obvious.

Nothing else he could have done is more important than that. None of his accomplishments from his single term mean shit anymore. He and Merrick Garland both deserve to go down in history as some of the biggest political disappointments the US has ever had. Utterly incompetent, completely naive, total disappointments.

We all knew the threat. They decided being naive and playing at tea party decorum was the solution. Morons.

That's not even counting not stepping aside for a fresh primary and a proper election where we might have at least had a fighting chance, despite suffering from the onset of dementia (which many, many Democrats tried to hide and are complicit in) and quite frankly probably the cancer diagnosis. Because it's way too advanced for a man who is as medically monitored as he is (or should be) to have not known about. That's not conspiracy mongering, it's common sense.

He could have been the transition President he said he would be, and well remembered, instead of being addicted to power and fucking us all with his greed.

If we manage to get out of this mess and elect another Democratic President I sure as fuck hope they don't take their lessons from the man being touted as the greatest President of my lifetime.

Enough with this "vote blue no matter who" stuff. Of course I voted for Biden (in the general, not the primary), of course I voted for Harris, of course I'll vote for whoever runs again the next Republican. I'm not an idiot. But this "we should just settle for anyone who's not the other side" mentality where we circle the wagons is how we got so screwed in the first place.

If you're happy with the Democratic party right now you are in some rare company.

 

[orwelldesign]

If you're happy with the Democratic party right now you are in some rare company

Good Gods, who said that? That I'm happy with the Democratic party right now? No, I'm not.

But the Democrats aren't an existential threat to the USA's continued existence as a democratic Republic, so "vote blue no matter who" is still good advice. There's so many structural problems that I'm not sure we'll make it through this intact -- but if there's hope at all, it resides in the Democratic party. It's them or the R-Fash, so moving them leftward and trying to make sure they hold every office from dogcatcher on up is the best realistic political advice to be had.

 

[O/Siris]

I definitely don't believe Kamala Harris lost because of sexism or racism. The Democrats lost because they suck. You can count the ways they suck, but it will still be true. That is my opinion, but boy is it not a fringe one. Has anyone checked their approval ratings lately?

Is someone going to call me stupid now?

Because that's not how discussions work here.

On the topic of "how things don't work", you don't get to Blame The Left because someone burned a Tesla. The Democrats are not responsible for every single person who throws a rock.

On the former point, just thank you. No need to belabor that further.

On the latter, you're right, but it isn't just one person. It was quite a few, and spread throughout the country. So I see a definite trend, not CAUSED by Democrats, but also not addressed by them, either. I can see, however, an argument that it was isolated copycats. I don't agree with that, but neither can I completely dismiss it.

 

[O/Siris]

Good Gods, who said that? That I'm happy with the Democratic party right now? No, I'm not.

Basically, you did. When you said it was sexism to blame "full stop." Remember, your own words.

But the Democrats aren't an existential threat to the USA's continued existence as a democratic Republic, so "vote blue no matter who" is still good advice. There's so many structural problems that I'm not sure we'll make it through this intact -- but if there's hope at all, it resides in the Democratic party. It's them or the R-Fash, so moving them leftward and trying to make sure they hold every office from dogcatcher on up is the best realistic political advice to be had.

Yeah, I think they are. Not in the way you say the GOP/Trump are (not arguing this, just acknowledging the point). But a blatant socialist like Mamdani gaining such national attention and support within the party certainly marks a danger.

And yes, I DO think communism and socialism are anti-American. Both deny the idea of private property while the USA codifies such in our Constitution. That doesn't mean there need be a purity test. If there are some specific examples we can learn from, let's do so.

 

[EnPeaSea]

Compared to who?

Shittier than Trump? Shittier than GW Bush? Shittier than George Bush? Shittier than Reagan? Heck, was he shittier than Clinton?

What one important thing did he fail at? That's a real question, because I've honestly no idea what specifically you meant.

Unfortunately, first past the post means you don't get someone great all the time. "A vote for a lesser evil is still a vote for evil" is a stupid sentiment -- as though the word "lesser" means nothing. That's that ridiculous leftist purity. Voting 3rd party or abstaining was exactly the same as voting for Trump, practically speaking.

Vote for progressive Democrats in the primaries, and vote blue no matter who in the general -- the Republicans have shown exactly who they are, and it's not good.

Aurich didn't say "shittier", he just said "shit"; a solid shit that is better then loose shit, it is still shit.

 

[Aurich]

But a blatant socialist like Mamdani gaining such national attention and support within the party certainly marks a danger.

I would like for you to prove that you understand your own words.

Instead of using phrases like "blatant socialist", please list the specific politics that Mamdani has been promoting that you object to. I'm not asking for citations, or details, a simple list will do.

I'll help you get started. Which of the following mark danger for you:

Is it universal pre-K childcare?​

​

Is it raising taxes by 2% on people making over a million dollars?​

​

Is it making city transportation free for people to ride?​

​

Is it building more affordable housing?​

​

Are you frightened of the more esoteric proposals, like a pilot program to build 5 city-run grocery stores in neighborhoods that are currently food deserts without access to fresh groceries?​

Please, if I missed one you can add it, but just tell me which of the above you think are dangerous.

 

[O/Siris]

I would like for you to prove that you understand your own words.

Instead of using phrases like "blatant socialist", please list the specific politics that Mamdani has been promoting that you object to. I'm not asking for citations, or details, a simple list will do.

I'll help you get started. Which of the following mark danger for you:

Is it universal pre-K childcare?​

​

Is it raising taxes by 2% on people making over a million dollars?​

​

Is it making city transportation free for people to ride?​

​

Is it building more affordable housing?​

​

Are you frightened of the more esoteric proposals, like a pilot program to build 5 city-run grocery stores in neighborhoods that are currently food deserts without access to fresh groceries?​

Please, if I missed one you can add it, but just tell me which of the above you think are dangerous.

I'm not "frightened" by any of it. Let me state first that if Andrew Cuomo were not such an "establishment" Democrat, Mamdani would not have stood a chance. The DNC old guard (if you will) are horrifically unpopular, and I think Pol Pot could beat them right now. Not literally, but I think you get my point.

Mamdani has himself said he's a socialist, but that wasn't your question.

Explain to me, please, how ANY of the above would work, not just in action, but fiscally. I don't believe they can. They charge (for example) for city transportation NOW and still cannot fund it without federal assistance (IMO, it's even worse here in Illinois/Chicago).

City-run grocery stores? Have you seen what it takes to get a car out of a tow lot now? And that's not even as wide-ranging a service as a grocery store.

He speaks of police as if the very system itself is DESIGNED to be racist. I very much disagree. And he sounds to me like he's in favor of decriminalizing virtually all property crime.

He has literally said that billionaires should not exist. That is a fundamental slap in the face to the private property protections of the US Constitution. This last one in particular offends me on a philosophical level.

I don't believe his plans will work, nor can be reliably funded. I don't live in NY state or city, so it's not for me to decide. But what I've heard places him well beyond anything I've opposed about Democrats (aside from corruption issues).

 

[O/Siris]

He failed to provide adequate support to Ukraine (via restrictions on weapon use in a number of areas) when it would have made the most difference. Possibly decisive difference. That's the big one for me, and it has had and will continue to have huge repercussions.

I support Biden on that part, though not enthusiastically. I took his stance to be an attempt to prevent an escalation of the war beyond Ukraine.

I think that's a defensible stance to take. But I'm not wholly convinced of it, either. So I think it was reasonable. But I can't strongly dispute objections to that.

 

[Aurich]

I'm not "frightened" by any of it. Let me state first that if Andrew Cuomo were not such an "establishment" Democrat, Mamdani would not have stood a chance. The DNC old guard (if you will) are horrifically unpopular, and I think Pol Pot could beat them right now. Not literally, but I think you get my point.

Mamdani has himself said he's a socialist, but that wasn't your question.

Explain to me, please, how ANY of the above would work, not just in action, but fiscally. I don't believe they can. They charge (for example) for city transportation NOW and still cannot fund it without federal assistance (IMO, it's even worse here in Illinois/Chicago).

City-run grocery stores? Have you seen what it takes to get a car out of a tow lot now? And that's not even as wide-ranging a service as a grocery store.

He speaks of police as if the very system itself is DESIGNED to be racist. I very much disagree. And he sounds to me like he's in favor of decriminalizing virtually all property crime.

He has literally said that billionaires should not exist. That is a fundamental slap in the face to the private property protections of the US Constitution. This last one in particular offends me on a philosophical level.

I don't believe his plans will work, nor can be reliably funded. I don't live in NY state or city, so it's not for me to decide. But what I've heard places him well beyond anything I've opposed about Democrats (aside from corruption issues).

If you're not frightened of it why are you calling it a danger?

And no, he hasn't said he's a socialist, he's said he's a democratic socialist. Words mean things. If I took things you said and just dropped off words from them you'd have a problem with it. Watch this:

"I'm 'frightened' by any of it." Look at that, I dropped a word and utterly changed what you said. Huh.

Billionaires shouldn't exist. Very reasonable.

The police are racist, and the system supports it. I mean, it's just a fact lol.

Anyways, he has to work with the state of NY, it's going to all end up a compromise. But taxing people making over a million dollars an extra 2% to pay for child care sounds great to me. Sign me up. If that's the "danger" then let's charge in.

 

[dzid]

Explain to me, please, how ANY of the above would work, not just in action, but fiscally. I don't believe they can. They charge (for example) for city transportation NOW and still cannot fund it without federal assistance (IMO, it's even worse here in Illinois/Chicago).

City-run grocery stores? Have you seen what it takes to get a car out of a tow lot now? And that's not even as wide-ranging a service as a grocery store.

He speaks of police as if the very system itself is DESIGNED to be racist. I very much disagree. And he sounds to me like he's in favor of decriminalizing virtually all property crime.

He has literally said that billionaires should not exist. That is a fundamental slap in the face to the private property protections of the US Constitution. This last one in particular offends me on a philosophical level.

I don't believe his plans will work, nor can be reliably funded. I don't live in NY state or city, so it's not for me to decide. But what I've heard places him well beyond anything I've opposed about Democrats (aside from corruption issues).

Seriously, you live in Chicago?

Cost to get out of a tow lot now? How much? $500? $1000? More? Because if it doesn't cost you that much, you have zero to complain about. You know what sort of folks get their vehicles seized on the regular here? You really should check on how much those fees are. $500 base a decade ago. Plus daily fees ($60? $100? I can't remember). Plus all (doubled) parking tickets, so $200 apiece.

Racist cops/bad cops? I had a conversation with some cops where I asked that question directly. Yeah, of course there are. Eventually the feds will get em was the answer. You think that's true anymore? To the extent it ever was? I need to think of a way to tell that story one of these days.

There are no good billionaires.

 

[O/Siris]

Seriously, you live in Chicago?

Cost to get out of a tow lot now? How much? $500? $1000? More? Because if it doesn't cost you that much, you have zero to complain about. You know what sort of folks get their vehicles seized on the regular here? You really should check on how much those fees are. $500 base a decade ago. Plus daily fees ($60? $100? I can't remember). Plus all (doubled) parking tickets, so $200 apiece.

I didn't refer to cost. I'm referring to the process.

Racist cops/bad cops? I had a conversation with some cops where I asked that question directly. Yeah, of course there are. Eventually the feds will get em was the answer. You think that's true anymore? To the extent it ever was? I need to think of a way to tell that story one of these days.

There are no good billionaires.

I didn't deny that racist cops exist. There are posts of mine here calling for the arrest and conviction of Derek Chauvin.

What you think of billionaires does not alter what The Constitution says.

 

[Aurich]

The idea of democratic socialism is, essentially, that capitalism works better for some things, and government works better for some things.

It's an entirely reasonable position. Anyone claiming that capitalism is the best system for everything is not a serious person.

But that doesn't mean the two systems are in conflict with each other. Because they're not at all.

Healthcare being run through private insurance is a terrible system. It's not cost effective. And those costs are paid by society. Tying health insurance to employment is a big burden on businesses too.

Your health is an inelastic thing. You cannot choose to not get your broken arm fixed because you shopped around and the price was too high, but you also cannot in general even "shop around".

Should we eliminate all private insurance? No, there's nothing wrong with providing extra supplemental insurance to people.

Should we eliminate private insurance as the baseline for people getting healthcare? Yes, absolutely. Will that massively disrupt the private insurance industry? Also yes, absolutely. A lot of companies and jobs will disappear, and/or be forced to transform. Does that mean we shouldn't do it? No, we should.

We will be better off, as a country, with universal healthcare. And that's where the idea of a greater good for all supersedes pure capitalism, where those companies should not be disrupted. And, it's also good for capitalism, because businesses that don't have to provide health care will be unburdened by massive costs. Workers will be more free to change jobs, which will put pressure on wages to rise. Which business can afford because they're not paying for all those healthcare benefits. That's capitalism, and smart business policy, and also a form of socialism working together. Furthermore, a healthy workforce is one that is more productive, and better for the country.

It's a giant win, in the big picture. Which is what government's purpose is. To oversee the big picture, and balance the benefits for all.

 

[O/Siris]

If you're not frightened of it why are you calling it a danger?

Opposing something and believing it is a bad something does not require fear.

And no, he hasn't said he's a socialist, he's said he's a democratic socialist. Words mean things. If I took things you said and just dropped off words from them you'd have a problem with it. Watch this:

"I'm 'frightened' by any of it." Look at that, I dropped a word and utterly changed what you said. Huh.

Another illustration of why Dems lost. You can't simply disagree. You have to lecture. You're right about what he's said, but his policies go beyond democratic socialism. Mea culpa on the quote, but I stand by my interpretation.

Billionaires shouldn't exist. Very reasonable.

The police are racist, and the system supports it. I mean, it's just a fact lol.

The only way to prevent billionaires is to declare that private property isn't private. And I very much disagree.

Individuals are racist. And there are far too many who live with them. The system needs fixing. But the processes and policies The Left keep attempting encourage and exacerbate the very problems policing is meant to resolve.

Anyways, he has to work with the state of NY, it's going to all end up a compromise. But taxing people making over a million dollars an extra 2% to pay for child care sounds great to me. Sign me up. If that's the "danger" then let's charge in.

Except it won't work. When has it ever?

 

[Aurich]

What you think of billionaires does not alter what The Constitution says.

There is nothing unconstitutional about raising marginal tax rates.

In 1945 the marginal rate for people earning over $200,000 was 94%

Now for practical reasons that number isn't actually that high, people found ways to avoid it. A discussion of the nuances of tax law and loopholes is way more off topic than we already are.

But the simple fact is that it was was the law, and could be again, with the numbers adjusted for inflation. Without any changes but that it would 94% on anything earned above something like $3.5 million. Sounds like a good start.

I reject any claims that any single individual, from Elon Musk to a Taylor Swift, would be unduly burdened by having to pay very high taxes on any money they make in a year beyond three and a half million dollars.

You might object to it. I don't actually care. But it's certainly not against the constitution, we've done it before ffs.

 

[O/Siris]

The idea of democratic socialism is, essentially, that capitalism works better for some things, and government works better for some things.

It's an entirely reasonable position. Anyone claiming that capitalism is the best system for everything is not a serious person.

I don't understand why you felt compelled to lecture me when I said we can take lessons from it.

 

[O/Siris]

There is nothing unconstitutional about raising marginal tax rates.

In 1945 the marginal rate for people earning over $200,000 was 94%

Now for practical reasons that number isn't actually that high, people found ways to avoid it. A discussion of the nuances of tax law and loopholes is way more off topic than we already are.

But the simple fact is that it was was the law, and could be again, with the numbers adjusted for inflation. Without any changes but that it would 94% on anything earned above something like $3.5 million. Sounds like a good start.

I reject any claims that any single individual, from Elon Musk to a Taylor Swift, would be unduly burdened by having to pay very high taxes on any money they make in a year beyond three and a half million dollars.

You might object to it. I don't actually care. But it's certainly not against the constitution, we've done it before ffs.

Why do you keep altering the conversation? I said that in reference to a stated belief that billionaires should not exist. NOT as a response to marginal tax rates.

 

[Aurich]

Opposing something and believing it is a bad something does not require fear.

You fear no danger!

Another illustration of why Dems lost. You can't simply disagree. You have to lecture. You're right about what he's said, but his policies go beyond democratic socialism. Mea culpa on the quote, but I stand by my interpretation.

"I shall change the meaning of words, and when you call me on it I will make it a personal failing on your part".

The only way to prevent billionaires is to declare that private property isn't private. And I very much disagree.

Nope, you just tax them, as I described a moment ago. It's easy, we did it before, we can do it again.

Individuals are racist. And there are far too many who live with them. The system needs fixing. But the processes and policies The Left keep attempting encourage and exacerbate the very problems policing is meant to resolve.

So, there are racist police, the system needs fixing, but you object to someone pointing that out. Got it.

Except it won't work. When has it ever?

When has ... paying for services with taxes worked? Um, the entire history of this country? What in the world are you on about lol.

 

[dzid]

I didn't refer to cost. I'm referring to the process.


I didn't deny that racist cops exist. There are posts of mine here calling for the arrest and conviction of Derek Chauvin.

What you think of billionaires does not alter what The Constitution says.

My opinion on billionaires makes no difference whatsoever, I agree. What the Constitution says and how the country is governed appears to be in flux, to put it mildly. I suppose we'll see how that all shakes out.

I'm referring to systemic, serious problems in policing, not one well-known case.

 

[Aurich]

Why do you keep altering the conversation? I said that in reference to a stated belief that billionaires should not exist. NOT as a response to marginal tax rates.

Billionaires should not exist <- a moral and easily defensible stance

We should have very high marginal tax rates on extreme incomes <- a solution to the moral quandary with enormous societal benefits

I think your problem honestly is you're not used to discussions where people just say what they mean, and you think it's some kinda gotcha to point it out.

Billionaires are offensive. The income inequality in the world is a Bad Thing™. There is nothing contradictory about stating that, while also supporting people being entrepreneurs, and building wealth through work.

Which is, quite frankly, how very little of the money billionaires have comes from. Anyways, tax the shit out of them.

 

[mpfaff]

Yeah, you say so. And then over and over and over your party produces such lovely examples of DEI as Jasmine "Hot Wheels" Crocket and Ilhan "US Worse than Somalia" Omar. Or shall I remind everyone of how David Hogg was booted from the DNC executive committee NOT because he did something wrong, but because the voters voting for him didn't vote for a candidate of the proper gender?

Over and over and over, those on The Left pull out the theoretical frogshit that has no bearing on the political reality of a party that less trusted than Trump, less popular than Trump, spent almost $1.5 BILLION on a mediocre campaign for a mediocre candidate, losing the House AND the Senate in the same swoop. And then you keep saying "It's not us. it's them."

Are you TRYING to give Trump a supermajority in 2026? 'Cause you're doing a damned fine job of getting there.

The problem is not and never has been that you're not trying to "remove bias." It's that your programs DO NOT ACCOMPLISH IT. Not once. And when challenged on it, you retreat into the the anecdotal trash you accuse me of doing. Hell you can't even recall me on Jan 7th calling what happened the day before an insurrection. Or how I've called him both a grifter and a clown since he won his first primary back in 2016. Nope. You just go on blindly assigning one -ism or -phobia after another and congratulating yourselves on your back alley psychology. And there's no indication you're ever going to do differently. All while the moderators here pat you on the head, give you cookies, and pretend they, too, are so smart.

Maybe... just MAYBE, if you'd turning those biased eyes inward, you might just figure out how you lost to a "convicted felon" by 3+ MILLION votes. But Trump can laugh at it all, because he knows you won't. He knows you're going to spend more millions trying to figure out what "syntax" you need to speak to American men, even though syntax is not and never has been the problem. Or how Democrats are llooking for "a Joe Rogan," all while forgetting they HAD a Joe Rogan. IT WAS JOE ROGAN!

Nah, none of that equals any kind of pattern or trend. It's all just one-offs. Uh huh.

Someone who wins an election isn't an example of DEI. That is one of the stupidest things I've read today. You're really just using "DEI" as a substitution for a racial epithet considering the winner of an election has nothing to do with Diversity Equity and Inclusion, they're the winner of an election in their district.

 

[O/Siris]

You fear no danger!



"I shall change the meaning of words, and when you call me on it I will make it a personal failing on your part".

Ironic you saying that when a repeat behavior of yours against me.

Nope, you just tax them, as I described a moment ago. It's easy, we did it before, we can do it again.

Duck, dodge, and deny. He has called for the elimination of billionaires. Not on an existential level, but to take away their wealth. COMPLETELY antithetical to The Constitution, to capitalism, and even to democratic socialism (or, really, anything).

So, there are racist police, the system needs fixing, but you object to someone pointing that out. Got it.

Duck, dodge, deny. That isn't what he said, nor what I oppose.

When has ... paying for services with taxes worked? Um, the entire history of this country? What in the world are you on about lol.

When has the tax actually and solely paid for the service.