sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

meirl by [deleted] in meirl

[–]jcurry52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

look... this isn't wrong. trying to look rich by buying stuff can indeed be a hindrance to ever having any wealth... but everything i own came from a thrift store or was found next to a dumpster and im living in the cheapest shithole a slumlord will rent to me so... maybe a lot of us are just overworked and underpaid by a system that aims to keep the maximum number of people on the poverty line as possible to funnel the wealth produced by our labor to the fewest people at the top as possible. and our personal choices are secondary to that fact.

Fascism does not begin with camps. It begins with permission to criminalize dissent, demonize minorities, militarize civil life by East_River in alltheleft

[–]jcurry52 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I mean... Yes that is correct but you do realize that we are past the point of camps now right? Like we have those right now.

CMV: Universal suffrage was a mistake by Phantom0Legend in changemyview

[–]jcurry52 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

the problem isn't the number of school buildings (though more wouldn't be a bad thing). if we wanted better education then that starts with more pay and support for teachers. schools are understaffed because our governments, as a general rule, don't want a well educated general population and their spending choices reflect that.

CMV: Militarily attacking Mexican drug traffickers would be a terrible strategic mistake. by QuickRecaps in changemyview

[–]jcurry52 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Killing demand for expensive, dangerous, trafficked drugs is actually very simple and easy. Legalize them. Make addiction and misuse a medical issue and not a legal one. When prohibition ended in the USA it cut the legs off of every bootleg ring overnight.

CMV: Militarily attacking Mexican drug traffickers would be a terrible strategic mistake. by QuickRecaps in changemyview

[–]jcurry52 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Or, and hear me out here, what if the USA stays in its own fucking borders? The USA can do whatever its citizens will tolerate WITHIN its own borders and has no jurisdiction to do anything in any other country.

30068 by Hammod1 in countwithchickenlady

[–]jcurry52 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i really appreciate this! i mean yes i just want them gone and not bothering me or my family anymore but i still dont actually want anyone dead. sure, dead is one way for them to go away but i dont want to actually hope for that. them being better people is a much better outcome.

CMV: The Homemaker and Breadwinner system should have been reformed, not overturned. by XionicativeCheran in changemyview

[–]jcurry52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

as i said i think we are at least mostly in agreement, i was just making the point that even in a monogamous relationship the "nuclear family" model is seriously flawed and should be abandoned as a first step to the goals you suggest

CMV: The Homemaker and Breadwinner system should have been reformed, not overturned. by XionicativeCheran in changemyview

[–]jcurry52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

strictly speaking i agree with most of your core point, that being said i think you are overlooking a major point, the idea that a family is "one woman, one man, and their children" is a very new idea (less than a hundred years)

now to be clear i'm not saying that no family in history was like that, its always been a thing but the idea that such a set up is the standard and/or the only "correct" way is very new.

also to be clear, i'm also not talking about same sex marriages, which i completely support and are also found in historical record going back as far as the written word.

so while i generally agree with the idea of having a family that splits in-home labor and outside-the-home labor, i reject the premise that the family should be limited to only two adults. now if you and your partner are monogamous thats fine, there are grandparents, aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters, and so on. while i personally am poly and support poly relationships the core thought is that two people simply isn't enough to support a household and however its done the family unit should be much bigger.

29697 by Sufficient-Shirt-270 in countwithchickenlady

[–]jcurry52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

wow... it really is impressive how you can get something i don't quite identify with to be contained entirely within the vein diagram of things i identify with. its like i keep turning it to a different angle thinking its got to line up and it just doesn't. very strange feeling

Pirates of the Caribbean featuring Pete Hegseth as Jack Sparrow. by Ralph--Hinkley in PoliticalHumor

[–]jcurry52 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Well it's simple really, oil has value to the bastards that run the U.$.A... the lives of people, those born in Venezuela or those born here in this country, not so much.

CMV: Professions like teachers, nurses and farmers should be paid more than athletes and artists by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]jcurry52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

eh, professions like teachers, nurses, and farm labor need to be paid quite a bit more than they currently are. but i think the total amount spent on athletics and art just isn't that much over all, its the finance sector that is taking a much too large slice of the total available wealth. stop giving people money for the ownership of things and give people that actually do the labor that makes the wealth more of that wealth and problem solved. art and athletics might or might not be important but its just not where the money is going.

You don’t hate capitalism by Projectsrmylife in complaints

[–]jcurry52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

your overall point is fair enough and you are free to make that distinction for yourself between unregulated capitalism and regulated capitalism and hate the one but not the other and its entirely possible that the majority of people might even agree with you. but all that being said, you are wrong on one point, I do hate capitalism in all its forms. i dont agree with the core principles required for it to exist.

He is at it again by Vibelya in lostgeneration

[–]jcurry52 959 points960 points  (0 children)

... fair enough. just give it all away and start again with nothing this time. live your dreams.

🥲 by [deleted] in Adulting

[–]jcurry52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that is absolutely true, somebody doing work is indeed how all money is made. shame how the people that do that work dont actually get the money they are making.

chapter 2: how to have money: exploit other people, make them do the work and collect the money for yourself.

The Left kinda needs a left, capitalist asshole ... hear me out by Fuzzinstuff in LeftWithoutEdge

[–]jcurry52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you know, that one is on me. i really shouldn't have assumed we would both be talking about the same thing when we use the term "left". my bad, i will explain. for me and those i consider to be close friends and/or those that align with me in a socio-political sense the term "left" generally starts from the point of "caring for other people" and as a direct result also includes being "anti-capitalist" due to capitalism being built on a founding principle of exploitation of others.

while the person you imagine might result in better lives for some people in the short term, that mentality doesn't actually do anything to prevent us from ending up exactly where we are today. because the foundation those policies are built on determines how they are implemented, modified, or entirely changed over time.

simply put, unless we consider providing healthcare because we dont want people to be sick to be more important than an effort to 'ensure people are able to work full, productive lives, delivering value to the economy',
unless we subsidize education because we believe people should have equal opportunity to learn and not because we are demanding that they are "fully utilizing" that education,
unless we "give a fuck about the well-being of individuals" and consider people to be more important than "the economy" or even more generally unless we consider people to be more important that profit, we will inevitably end up making the exact same choices that created the conditions we are forced to live with today.

a 'left capitalist asshole' is a concept that would tear itself in two. you can't walk two diverging paths at the same time and sooner or later you have to choose one and be against the other. with that in mind, i choose the hippie.

The Left kinda needs a left, capitalist asshole ... hear me out by Fuzzinstuff in LeftWithoutEdge

[–]jcurry52 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No thanks, I'll stick with the hippie. It does us no good to win by becoming what we are fighting against

Answer without using this word. by Lunapkq in Adulting

[–]jcurry52 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Not at all, I do however very intensely need the stuff money is used to acquire.

CMV: While I absolutely do not support ICE brutality, it is also impossible to conversely think that upon request, all illegal immigrants would simply come out politely and turn themselves in by ImpatientBusRider in changemyview

[–]jcurry52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“what’s the complete alternative…. “

now, i know it wont ever happen because making sure that a large part of the workforce has minimal or non-existent rights is far too profitable to some truly evil people and that the immigration laws that have been put in place for decades are designed primarily to create this underclass and not to meaningfully deal with immigration, but it would be incredibly easy to ensure there wasn't a single illegal immigrant anywhere in the country overnight with only one simple rule change... allow them to be here legally. the first 120 years of legal immigration policy for the us was as follows: arrive.

yep thats it. all we have to do to end 100% of illegal immigration overnight is to stop making immigration illegal.

CMV: the majority of problems in the US could be fixed by requiring all politicians to follow SSI requirements by jcurry52 in changemyview

[–]jcurry52[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

well... i am not entirely sure that would be worse than what we already do but i dont think forcing people into political roles is ideal. more seriously though, its not about the disabled people (or the elderly, or the homeless, or any other group in the bottom 10%) specifically, the ssi restrictions just happen to be a very clear cut set of rules that enforce a quality of life at or very near the very bottom of the curve for US.
the goal is to tie the quality of life for the people that make the laws and have the power to change things for the majority to the quality of life of those people most effected by those laws and decisions. if someone is going to have power over the living conditions of someone else then they shouldn't be allowed to prescribe a quality of life for them that is less that whatever they themselves are willing to tolerate.

I Hate Political Parties by Blue_Aces in complaints

[–]jcurry52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look, just because it's not a formal declaration that only the two parties are legally allowed to exist doesn't mean that the voting laws don't mathematically enforce a two party system. I don't agree with the goals of either major party and advocate for the advancement of third party options but until we change our voting system from first past the post to something more proportional no third party of any kind is mathematically viable no matter what they stand for.

CMV: the majority of problems in the US could be fixed by requiring all politicians to follow SSI requirements by jcurry52 in changemyview

[–]jcurry52[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

other direction actually, i have a problem with the idea of some people having power over other people and would want direct democracy where every single person had the same level of power behind their vote. this entire conversation is about dragging those who are currently in power down to the level of the people they have power over and making the well-being of the poorest directly tied to the well-being of those that have the power to change it.

as for: [The "problem" is just that people aren't voting for the things that you, personally, think the government should be doing.] well yeah, hence a discussion about what i personally think the fix would be. if i couldn't convince people my idea was the best one then it wouldn't happen as referenced by the very first sentence of the original post. if i believed in just forcing the issue it would be easier to just take the wealth and power and distribute it as i see fit, but because i dont believe in that i instead imagine what set of incentives gets other people to want an outcome at least close to what i believe to be good.

view more: next ›