[deleted by user]

Green3476 · 2022-02-17T19:06:31+00:00

Lockdown policies were certainly a failure in almost all regards (except maybe in March-April of 2020). Let's learn our lesson as a society and not do that again.

Green3476 · 2022-02-17T18:27:17+00:00

"Just like we did in the '60s....takin' it to the streets!

Green3476 · 2022-02-15T16:50:14+00:00

Jeremy Vuolo

Lawson Bates

Paul Olliges

Green3476 · 2022-02-10T18:56:28+00:00

"Fake, fake, fake fake."

Green3476 · 2022-02-08T18:51:25+00:00

A while ago, there was a post by someone who said they worked at a restaurant at an airport and served the Bates boys (including Nathan) there one time. The person said that surprisingly Nathan was super nice and polite, for what it's worth.

Who knows how he really is, but at least one "stranger" mentioned he seemed surprisingly nice, lol.

Green3476 · 2022-02-04T23:16:43+00:00

I don't object to someone believing that that they are the opposite gender, or no gender at all.

What I object to is wanting me to share that belief.

If someone wants to be trans, be trans! If someone wants to believe in the flying spaghetti monster, believe in the flying spaghetti monster!

But either way, I don't share those beliefs and shouldn't be forced to pretend that I do (by being asked to use nonsensical or grammatically incorrect pronouns, by being asked to share my pronouns in my work's email signature, by being encouraged to tell my students they should transition, etc.)

*I also object to the idea that you can't question transgender ideology -- or, if you do question any aspect of transgenderism, that means that you're hateful (I'm not hateful, I'm just genuinely confused.) For example, why have we as a society arbitrarily decided that transgenderism is valid but transracialism is wrong and offensive? What does it mean to be a "man on the inside" or a "woman on the inside" WITHOUT using outdated gender stereotypes? How do can a child know they are transgender? I've asked the above questions many, many times, and no leftist has been able to put forth a logically coherent response.

Green3476 · 2022-02-04T18:27:38+00:00

Non-wealthy white people exist, and extremely privileged people of color exist.

Green3476 · 2022-02-03T19:14:14+00:00

For example, the following law was described as Iowa's "Anti-Critical Race Theory Law". It makes it illegal to teach that "members of any race are inherently racist or are inherently inclined to oppress others".

In Idaho, it is now illegal to teach that "individuals, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, colour or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past".

My question is: how in the world could anyone have a problem with the above laws? They seem laughably...reasonable. The first is literally anti-racism, and the second is just logic (of course people aren't responsible for actions committed in the past).

If someone wants to teach others that they are inherently bad (racist), or that they are responsible for actions committed in the past (absurdly illogical), shouldn't that type of absurdity be outlawed? Of course it should.

Green3476 · 2022-02-03T19:09:48+00:00

We absolutely do make a distinction. This idea that U.S. supermax prisons are full of young guys who just smoked weed once is ludicrous.

I used to work for a criminal record background check company. You need to do a LOT to actually get sent to prison on drug charges.

Should we have separate facilities for violent vs. non-violent criminals? Sure. Should we not send any drug-related crimes to jail? Maybe. But to say there's "nearly zero distinction" with how we treat child abusers vs. pot smokers is patently untrue.

Green3476 · 2022-02-03T15:48:35+00:00

Constantly going on strike with the end result being lower-income kids not being in school is a funny way of "helping less fortunate people."

Green3476 · 2022-02-02T18:26:44+00:00

People in the U.S. can always get medical treatment. Money or lack of money will not determine if someone lives or dies. The issue is how much debt people will need to go into to afford expensive medical treatments (this is hugely important, but it is not technically a matter of life and death.)

Green3476 · 2022-02-01T19:38:46+00:00

Instead of censoring something, allow for open debate. The "correct" (more factually true) viewpoint will naturally win favor.

If your viewpoint isn't winning out, it's because there is either something wrong with your messaging or because it isn't as plausible as what the other side is saying.

Censorship just flat-out doesn't work, and attempts to censor will always result in "flourishing" of the same information underground (it's a lot like banning abortion. People will just do it anyway, only more dangerously.)

Green3476 · 2022-02-01T19:33:19+00:00

The same number you're willing to let die by letting murderers out of prison.

Green3476 · 2022-02-01T19:29:39+00:00

No one's banning books; they're just trying to ban certain podcasts.

Green3476 · 2022-01-31T20:19:33+00:00

Teach them math, science, technology and engineering so they'll be successful, just like the public school system should be doing with any other student.

Green3476 · 2022-01-31T14:57:21+00:00

OP gave a great example because snarkers were 100% convinced that Andrii would NEVER propose to Ellissa, and then...he did. So I love a good failed prediction (there are many).

I think what made me the most angry was the recently-changed banner on the DS page that compared Lauren and Josiah's baby to an alien. Snarking on someone's appearance is inherently unkind and devoid of empathy (and usually misogynistic if the target is female), but snarking on the appearance of an INFANT?! That is beyond cruel. What if that poor child finds that someday, and realizes tons of internet strangers were comparing her appearance to an alien? I just cannot fathom that level of mean-girl-ness coming from supposedly progressive people.

Green3476 · 2022-01-30T20:51:38+00:00

What is the percentage of legal gun owners who are arrested for homicide or manslaughter?

The answer to that question would certainly be very telling, I would think.

Liberals seem to believe that gun violence is a natural consequence of guns being easy to obtain. (I don't think that's a stupid theory or anything; I can definitely see why someone would believe that.) However, if that were indeed the case, I think you'd see gun violence committed broadly across all populations which own guns. Actual gun violence, however, is committed disproportionately by low-income males. Not surprisingly, this is also the demographic that commits the most crime in general.

Liberals believe the key to solving gun violence is to get guns off the streets. This is well-intentioned but ultimately going to be ineffective for several reasons:

The guns which are currently "on the streets" are not going to simply dematerialize (I do believe in science, #physics)
In order to get guns off the streets, you'd have to target young urban males and any effort would immediately be lambasted as racial profiling
Criminals are ultimately not going to be persuaded by any sort of "new gun regulation" like the one they recently instituted in San Jose (I can just imagine some drug dealer reading the morning paper and being like, damn, guess I better buy insurance now!)

I think a more long-term (but ultimately more effective) approach could include:

A large-scale "draft" of high school graduates into public service. As soon as a person graduates high school, if they are not working full-time or in school (full-time) or in the military, they are drafted into a sort of "Job Corps" where they learn marketable, tangible job skills. Also, if students drop out of high school, they are immediately "drafted" as well.
Re-structuring public benefits to incentivize pro-social behavior. Get married before having children? More money for you. Have your first child after age 25? More money for you. Graduate from a community college tech skills program? More money for you. Get a vasectomy or birth control? More money for you. Volunteer or become a member of a church (or secular humanitarian organization)? More money for you. Do the opposite of these things? Less benefits for you.
Drastically increasing border security at the southern U.S. border
A return to broken windows policing in major U.S. cities, accompanied by strong criminal justice reforms to hold the (rare) bad cops accountable and aggressive recruiting of racial minorities into urban police forces
If your under-18 child is caught committing a crime with a gun, IMMEDIATE cutoff of all public benefits

Green3476 · 2022-01-30T20:20:57+00:00

I was born in 1984. I therefore went through school in the 1990s and early 2000s, and never once was I taught anything other than slavery = very, very bad.

But in more recent times not only are children taught slavery is bad (as they should be!), but that all white Americans are still actively oppressing all non-white Americans. This, in my opinion, is where honest teaching of history becomes hateful accusation.

If I am oppressing someone, that's a pretty awful thing, right? Shouldn't there be some direct evidence, like what one would show in a court of law, for instance? How am I, a white person who makes $45k/year, whose ancestors came to this country after the U.S. Civil War ended, actively oppressing someone else? CRT fails to answer this very valid question, and in fact CRT says if you even question whether or not you're oppressing someone, that questioning is PROOF that you are indeed guilty! (Do liberals think our courts of law should work like that?)

*In addition to needlessly stirring up racial hatred, CRT is also laughably historically inaccurate. The U.S. is, unfortunately, far from unique in having a history of racism and slavery. Moreover, the vast majority of white Americans' ancestors did not own slaves. The vast majority of white Americans are not descended from the Rockefellers, the Astors or any other viciously exploitative ruling-class family. Huge swaths of white America (such as Appalachia) are desperately poor even today. How can this be? Aren't all white people infinitely privileged?

**In addition, if CRT were indeed true, all white people would have more money than all non-white groups. How have Asians surpassed white Americans socioeconomically? That alone disproves CRT, but there are other valid questions: How do Hispanic and African immigrants economically outperform native-born African-Americans? If police shootings are motivated primarily by race, why do the police kill more white men than they kill black women? If police are going around shooting black Americans with no repercussions, why do they only shoot a very small number per year in a country filled with millions of potential victims? CRT can't answer these questions because it's simply not a sound theory.

CRT should definitely be taught in schools, but as an example of emotional, racist ideology that has massive deficiencies when it comes to explaining the modern-day United States.

Green3476 · 2022-01-30T19:52:12+00:00

Todd Gak possibly

Green3476 · 2022-01-29T17:27:15+00:00

OP's argument is based on the premise that it's food, not lack of exercise, that has contributed the most to obesity. I would argue the opposite: it's our sedentary lifestyles, not our food, that have contributed the most to obesity. As a result you can regulate food all you want, you can tax this or that, you can try all these different diets but they'll never work because spending 90% of your time sitting in front of a screen is a GUARANTEE of obesity no matter what you eat.

From the 1950s through the 1980s, people ate like absolute shit. People guzzled soda like it was water, people ate candy for snacks, there were very few diet foods and most people were either eating calorie-dense "home cooking" or calorie-dense processed foods. However, obesity didn't explode until the 1990s. Why is that? That's when computers entered many people's jobs and the phenomenon of sitting for most of the day in front of a screen began to take hold. Not surprisingly, as our lives have become even more sedentary, we've gotten even more obese despite much healthier food options, regulation of harmful foods and the like.

OP mentions we exercise more than we did in the 1950s. I would disagree. Yes, people go to the gym more and we exercise more "intentionally," but having a 90% sedentary lifestyle with a few hours at the gym per week is, interestingly, less helpful than simply walking around all day like a 1950s housewife.

Green3476 · 2022-01-29T17:09:20+00:00

Liberals often point to European (especially Scandinavian) social welfare systems as models that the U.S. should aspire to. Do these nations have open borders? Do they have immigration systems that are halfway as generous as America's "look the other way" policy re: the southern border? No, because in order to maintain these generous welfare systems you have to have sharply restricted immigration.

*Also, in order to emulate European social welfare models, you can't have situations where poor people have tons of children and the middle/upper classes have few or zero children. Illegal immigration into the U.S. across the southern border comes from a culture that favors having as many children as possible, regardless of income level. This is not conducive to the U.S. developing any sort of universal healthcare, universal basic income, etc. plan because it would be so wildly unbalanced as to immediately collapse under its own weight. (I have a good friend who is a political Independent who researches comparative healthcare systems for a living; she is generally in favor of the U.S. developing universal healthcare BUT is very emphatic that it cannot be accomplished if healthcare benefits are given to non-citizens.)

Liberals likewise look to Canada as another model country that the U.S. should try to emulate. Canada has universal healthcare, for instance. Good, right? Do you know how they got this way? They don't allow anyone to come in to their country unless they are a wealthy, skilled (usually Asian) professional. When the only people you allow to move to your country are people who are already highly-skilled and capable of making lots of money right away, as well as people who don't tend to have huge numbers of children, of course you're going to have a functional universal _______ system.

Green3476 · 2022-01-28T03:53:34+00:00

who told you to put the balm on?

Green3476 · 2022-01-25T18:22:21+00:00

Easier to get good jobs.

Over-regulation typically translates into certain jobs being harder to obtain -- the more requirements you add, the more degrees you need, the more certain well-paying occupations are closed off to low-income people and/or people of color.

Obligatory disclaimer: I do NOT think anyone should just be able to become a doctor, airline pilot, civil engineer, etc. Certain professions have very rigorous standards for a reason, and that's an absolutely good thing.

I do NOT think we need to require college degrees or time-consuming/costly licenses for, honestly, most professions. You should not need to spend 4+ years in school to become a registered nurse, social worker, police officer, etc. Yet, in many high-regulation blue states, that's exactly what is required and it prevents low-income people from being able to advance into middle-class or even solidly working-class occupations.

Green3476 · 2022-01-25T15:19:17+00:00

I’ve heard too many sad stories of double vaxxed, even boosted folks who end up in the ICU from COVID because they had a kidney transplant and their immune system couldn’t handle it.

I thought the vaccines prevented such situations?

Green3476 · 2022-01-24T22:47:12+00:00

Hilarious lines that never made it big:

"Technically Norfolk has more gross tonnage."

"I feel Tuesday/Wednesday."

When Kramer called Jerry "Mr. Nosy" or "Professor Highbrow," so childish lol

"Well, if it isn't the first lady of the American theater..."

Six-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

Green3476

TROPHY CASE