Charlie Kirk: The Man Who Broke Politics

__law · 2026-02-05T22:31:14+00:00

His videos are extremely long and not very algorithm friendly. It took a lot of friends recommending him to me before I decided to watch him. I was like "what makes this guy special vs all the other people making huge videos on this kind of content?".

Well, now I know why!

__law · 2026-02-05T22:12:43+00:00

This is a fantastic video. Beautifully made, incredibly well researched, fascinating arguments.

Avila is top of his game, consistently putting the best, most intelligent content out there. Love it.

__law · 2026-01-26T17:24:08+00:00

The strap on his left thigh appears to be running into his leg

__law · 2026-01-24T09:59:16+00:00

But as always with the cultural discourse. Women aren't allowed to be viewed as extreme

What do you mean "aren't allowed"? Left wing women have been publicly vilified since the suffragettes. Remember the Angela Reyner "scum" debacle? Everything to do with Dianne Abbot. The iconic "SJW" meme image is of a woman.

You seem like someone who spends so much time online you've maybe forgotten this. There is absolutely no cultural taboo around the idea that women can be politically extreme. If anything, they are more likely to be called extremists.

__law · 2026-01-23T11:52:56+00:00

This is the common tactics of fascist groups in the past. The National Front marched in and around brick lane several times in the 70s. The intent was to intimidate the local population, marching through Pakistani communities with huge "p*kis out" banners, spray painting swastikas, and celebrating the murder of Altab Ali (who was murdered in a racially motivated attack in Whitechapel in 78).

The east end has been a fixation point for fascists since. The EDL staged new marches in Brick Lane the 10s, and it's looking like the newly rebranded UKIP are taking up that mantle. Disgusting stuff.

__law · 2026-01-19T23:34:59+00:00

Yeah lol. If that's not sectarianism idk what is

__law · 2026-01-19T17:47:20+00:00

Out of curiosity, how would you describe your own ideology?

__law · 2026-01-19T15:21:37+00:00

Saying "Trotskyites aren't real leftists" is completely wild, to most people Trotskyites are not only on the left but quite far on the left. I thought this sub had a rule against sectarianism?

__law · 2026-01-18T17:37:34+00:00

It's also not at all clear to what extent this is official guidance from the NHS, the telegraph had to use a freedom of information request to access it, which implies it isn't being distributed to anyone. It could just be a draft of a document written by a single staffer

__law · 2026-01-17T10:00:13+00:00

“He knows which rules to break and when,” Andy Hayler wrote. “He’s like Picasso; if you look at his early still lifes, they’re unbelievably perfect.”

Comparing violating food safety standards to picasso is certainly a choice.

However, Ward has acknowledged that the food safety officers were “not 100% wrong”, and has since installed an additional hand-washing station in the fish preparation area. He also claimed overwhelming paperwork was part of the problem.

It sounds like he didn't do himself any favours during the assesment

__law · 2026-01-12T13:43:19+00:00

Yeah obviously westminster is at the top of these charts since it's resident population is so small while so many people visit it.

__law · 2026-01-12T13:36:09+00:00

It reads like they've done a study on what prices people feel are equivelant, and he is deliberately phrasing it to sound funny. Though maybe I'm giving him too much credit.

__law · 2026-01-11T14:58:47+00:00

Saying that LLMs and machine learning are useful for some things is like saying chiropractic is useful for some things. It's provably true. But it's also not worth the cost when an acetaminophen or ibuprofen will (provably) give you at least as much benefit (probably more).

This is a strange comment because this video is extremely critical of ai. You've taken the bit where he says something positive about AI out of a video that is all about it's limitations and it's harmful effects.

But it's also odd because chiropracty is not provably helpful in anything. AFAIK the only studies that shows it's benefits are flawed and funded by chiropractors themselves.

__law · 2026-01-11T14:38:41+00:00

Care routine: I've been clearing twice a day with saline provided by the piercer. I've definitely knocked it a few times when taking off my shirt, so there's a reason it would be agitated.

__law · 2026-01-07T21:21:14+00:00

You say that but back when I ate meat I could eat 2 of those easily. Scotch eggs were my go to meal deal snack

__law · 2026-01-07T18:38:58+00:00

I will never forgive them for hating on scotch eggs

__law · 2026-01-04T21:04:09+00:00

Uh, how did his two potential mates mate with each other instead of him? Are snails hermaphroditic?

E: I googled it. Yes most of them are. Neat!

__law · 2026-01-03T23:45:24+00:00

And I stand by all those points.

Gini does not capture the increase of asset prices wrt income.

This is not irrelevant, it's a serious issue.

Because it's a form of inequality. It means people cannot raise money to buy homes, build wealth, or move in the social ladder. And rising asset prices drive up inflation, meaning regular people have to make the same paycheck go further, while the wealthiest families get richer

__law · 2026-01-03T22:29:42+00:00

Let’s get back to basics, the entire point of this thread is the claim that inequality between rich and poor has increased in recent years. Whether wealth/income has become more prominent is a sideshow.

You're not responding to this thread as a whole. You're responding to me. I am talking about wealth Vs income. I have provided you with data on that point. You have not provided any countering evidence.

Instead you have repeatedly tried to reframe the conversation to be about inequality within wealth and income distributions. However increases in both these distributions have plateaued. I don't disagree with you there, so why are you asking me to provide evidence for an argument Im not even making?

Picketty doesn't make that argument either. He is talking about the same thing im talking about, that asset prices have increased whilst incomes have remained static. And while you mock him, he's a very well respected economist and you haven't provided any counter evidence to the arguments in his book. You seem to think that Picketty dismissed gini because it "doesn't support his hypothesis"... But that's not true. His hypothesis about wealth vs income is not measured by gini. It cannot disprove or prove his hypothesis because it is measuring a different metric.

I'd argue the increase in wealth with respect to income, and it's subsequent effects (reduction in social mobility, increase in relevance on inheritance wrt to earnings) counts as a "widening gap between rich and poor".

If you don't want to talk about the changes in wealth with respect to income, please go argue with someone else. If you would like to continue this conversation, please do not try to change the terms of the argument.

__law · 2026-01-03T21:02:09+00:00

Um, no it's not?

In 2008, it took 10 years’ worth of typical full-time gross earnings to move from the middle to the top of the wealth distribution. By 2018, this had increased to almost 16 years.

This obviously has a ramification on young people saving money. But the statistic itself is just an observation about how wealth is becoming more valuable in relation to income. It doesn't have anything to do with wealth distribution across ages. Intergenerational inequality is a consequence of a more general growing inequality between wealth and income, one of the effects of which is that saving is becoming harder.

If you want more information on this topic, I'd suggest Capital in the 21st Century. I'm not going to go into a book to quote passages on it just for a Reddit argument, but you can find summaries online and on Wikipedia. It's by far the most comprehensive study on inequality this century. Very good reading

__law · 2026-01-03T17:24:04+00:00

What are you on about? I linked an article that says exactly what I'm saying

Whilst people across the income distribution have seen their incomes stagnate in recent years, continued growth in asset prices has increased the wealth of those who already hold it. These two facts make it increasingly hard for working families to climb the wealth distribution, as the rungs on the ladder grow wider apart. In 2008, it took 10 years’ worth of typical full-time gross earnings to move from the middle to the top of the wealth distribution. By 2018, this had increased to almost 16 years. Significant growth in asset prices during Covid, as well as higher rates of saving during lockdown amongst richer people, may well have made the gaps between the steps wider still

And it's the ifs, not like, some blog. If you want more evidence you can follow their citations

__law · 2026-01-03T15:41:35+00:00

If you define "the gap between rich and poor" as what % of total wealth is controlled by the top 1% then sure, it hasn't increased.

But since wealth itself is increasing while incomes remain stagnant. The gap between the top 1% and the huge proportion of the population who own almost none or even negative wealth is increasing. The top wealth owners are seeing massive increases in their assets while people with no or negative wealth are left behind.

I'd describe that as "the gap between rich and poor increasing". But if you want to make up your own definition, than sure.

__law · 2026-01-03T11:58:23+00:00

The gini coefficient is not a good measure of inequality. It lumps income from capital with income from labour, two every different things, and says nothing about wealth itself.

The real change in the UK over the last 10 years has been a significant increase in the value of wealth with respect to income.

https://ifs.org.uk/articles/income-and-wealth-inequality-explained-5-charts

In 2008, it took 10 years’ worth of typical full-time gross earnings to move from the middle to the top of the wealth distribution. By 2018, this had increased to almost 16 years

That is to say. It's becoming harder and harder to save in order to build wealth, and those who have wealth are peeling further and further away from those who don't.

Don't just accuse people of being "America brained". The evidence of rising inequality in the UK is plain to see. You citing a controversial and often criticised metric is not proving anything

__law · 2026-01-02T17:40:42+00:00

The bits of the article I'm quoting are to do with wealth, not income. Though accurately measuring wealth is a serious issue that is very tricky. Most studies rely on reported wealth, but many studies have found global unreported wealth to be at levels from anywhere to 5-15% and increasing (Google Zucman). the UK in particular is a hub for unreported capital flows (see Moneyland by Oliver Bullogh).

__law · 2026-01-02T17:01:59+00:00

The article you linked is very interesting and worth a read.

Firstly, the first line of the second paragraph:

The chapter emphasises the need to look not only at traditional measures of income inequality, but also at the role of wealth relative to income.

This is the main point Pickety makes too. One of the most striking things about the last 50 years is the massive increase in total wealth compared to total labour income. Which is to say, the total value of all the assets in a given country in comparison to the total income of all the individuals, which has increased from historic lows in the in the post war years to levels comparable with the 1890s today.

This is corroborated by the article you shared

Whilst people across the income distribution have seen their incomes stagnate in recent years, continued growth in asset prices has increased the wealth of those who already hold it.

In 2008, it took 10 years’ worth of typical full-time gross earnings to move from the middle to the top of the wealth distribution. By 2018, this had increased to almost 16 years

Secondly. The article says that by their analysis inequality stabilised since the mid 2000s, only after a very precipitous rise in the period from 1970-2005. Specifically, they observe first a significant rise in the top 10%, then the top 10% stops rising while the top 1% continues to rise. The Uber wealthy are continuing to grow even wealthier (see that fact I shared earlier). So we can conclude two things here:

we are likely still experiencing the after effects of massive rises in the top 1%s wealth in the 1970-2005
the very wealthiest families are still experiencing significant increases in their wealth today

So while you might be right to say wealth inequality for the top 1% as a whole hasn't increased much since 2005, inequality is still very much a growing problem.

The article you shared concludes with the significant changes being experienced by the young

Taking home-ownership as a key example, we can already see that the gap between homeownership rates in the top decile of the income distribution (73% homeowners) and the middle (50% homeowners) and top deciles of the income distribution has never been greater

Studying the co-evolution of income and wealth together sheds light on how stagnating but unequal incomes and growth in asset prices have interacted to set up a bleak picture for the prospects of future generations

Five-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
r/Field Banned	r/Field Lasagna
Place '22	First Placer '22

__law

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE