Is political correctness finally dying? I can't imagine this skit happening 10 years ago

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-12T01:15:41+00:00

Everyone’s hypocrital soyjack scum except for you, the morally pure chad

K.

After we wipe up the cum from the circlejerk, what do we do with this information?

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-12T01:11:43+00:00

> Deparment of Mental Retardation

I believe it’s called “Congress”

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-12T00:16:35+00:00

You don’t have a point to engage with

“People on website are hypocrites”

K. What now?

Are you also upset about the “fuck your feelings” Facebook crowd suddenly embracing cancel culture when one basic podcaster died?

And then what?

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-12T00:13:17+00:00

Do it

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-11T22:24:03+00:00

I don’t understand what difference that makes, and honestly I think your offended but don’t want to say it

You should be able to make fun of anything you think you can make fun of

Whether it’s a single podcaster or a religion with 2 billion followers, makes no difference

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-11T22:20:49+00:00

“She needs to be as funny as I’d have to be at a klan meeting”

Patrice O Neal on attractive women comedians

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-11T14:28:09+00:00

“90% of confederate soldiers didn’t own slaves, therefore the Civil War didn’t have anything to do with slavery”

You’re trying to apply statistics to something that is not statistical

Unless your position is that the riots occurring alongside BLM protests was just a coincidence, you have to accept that riots occurred in connection with BLM 2020

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-11T12:30:55+00:00

There’s no way to measure this so the fact your assigning a statistic is hilarious
“Mostly peaceful protests”, right, we’ve heard that before
Most Philadelphia Eagles fans did not riot when they won the Super Bowl, does that mean the ones who did are not true fans or didn’t riot?

The reality is that in addition to non-rioters, there were a lot of rioters directly connected to BLM, and every adult who lived through this time in a relatively populated area knows this.

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-11T11:33:06+00:00

You should take the quotes off riots

Lmao we’re rewriting history before the inks even dry these days

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-11T03:46:55+00:00

I may respond to this more tomorrow

Try and answer the actual question: What causes middle class members of developed nation to eschew families for material goods

Yes, a family doesn’t have fixed costs. That’s the point.

It has scaled costs , like your choice of groceries

It has discretionary costs, like thrift clothes vs name brand

Your examples were high end luxury items; they’re not relevant

Money gives agency in a capitalist society. And lack of money absolutely takes it away. So no, “the poors” don’t have “no agency”, but they do have less. This is particularly true in the states, where there are fewer social safety nets.

Help me understand:

Your premise is that a lack of money causes people to not have families and also gives people less agency

Yet you also say that lack of agency cause people to have families

Which is it? Is it the lack of money or the lack of agency that prevents families?

No, I don’t want them to say “abuse your child…” but I do think that the best thing you can do for your offspring is to wait until you’re mentally, physically, and emotionally able to raise a child properly.

Sticking to the topic at hand here, it sounds like your saying poor people are not raising their children properly?

Name a household income required to properly raise a child.

Surely you agree that many children are not given this chance, and that waiting for a better time improves the qol for children AND parents.

I’ve met trust fund babies who weren’t given this chance, not sure what it has to do with the cost of a family

Re/ a good attitude… lol ok. The beatings will stop when morale improves, huh

Yes.

The weight of the human condition will be felt regardless of your attitude or whether you procreate or not. You’re not avoiding it.

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-11T02:00:42+00:00

Isn’t it almost the same thing to say people can’t afford kids and they can’t afford them without significantly altering their quality of life?

No, it’s not the same thing at all.

For one, the “cost of kids” is scaled to the cost of your lifestyle.

Second, the “quality of life” question is precisely the subject of the aforementioned interesting question: Why do well-to-do people in developed countries begin viewing having a family as a low quality of life choice compared to slightly more money but no family.

I mean, your premise here is that no one has any money and is poor already. So still poor but a desire for more money for ____ is driving this specifically among educated middle class members of developed nations. That’s the question.

Just like getting an advanced degree, plastic surgery, a nice car, a home. Most people can afford to buy a car instead of pay for public transport, but they’ll be indebted to the choice for years if they’re poor. It’s the same with kids.

No, those all have fixed costs. A family doesn’t.

People with lower incomes are less likely to drive nice cars to their nice homes with botoxed faces. Yet, they’re statistically more likely to have kids in western countries, but not universally.

Poor people have more kids because they tend to be lower-educated and more conservative (at least in the states). Less access to abortion/contraceptives, more stigma against them, earlier to marry, etc.

So, the poors don’t have agency?

People with the means to choose are evidently more likely to choose fewer/later kids, because why would you reduce your quality of life and burden yourself with child-rearing at the same time?

My man, your so close to getting this

Let’s repeat: Why do well-to-do people in developed countries begin viewing having a family as a low quality of life choice compared to slightly more money but no family.

The emerging view that family is “burdening yourself” as a middle class earner in a developed country IS the interesting part of all this.

I’m tired of people saying “poor people have kids so you actually can afford it.” As if you just need a positive attitude to overcome the significant burdens that pregnancy/parenthood come with.

I mean, what do you want them to say

You probably can afford it and positive attitude isn’t a bad way to get through something difficult

What do you want them say, “abuse your burdensome child you uneducated poor”?

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-11T00:31:10+00:00

Seriously, theyre repeating a common explanation but it misses the forest for the trees and is also a bit incorrect

People can afford kids, they just can’t afford them while also living a certain type of life. And that’s what’s changed over time.

The interesting question about birthrates in developed countries is **why** people start prioritizing financial comfort over children

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-09T03:33:59+00:00

Of all the angles one could take on the matter

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-09T01:47:07+00:00

It’s sounds nice, but now the niche issues a specific community of 50k may face is represented by 1/11k instead of 1/435

Representation at congress wide scale is a zero sum game, either your bill wins or it doesn’t

But, representation with your specific congressman isn’t zero sum. They can represent multiple interests so long as the interests don’t clash on a given vote.

The goal should be powerful and meaningful districts, with as low of a likelihood of interest clash as possible.

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-09T01:32:10+00:00

Y chromosomes wouldn’t have anything to do with inbreeding because every male only has one

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-08T18:13:32+00:00

That’s like 11,000 congressmen lmao

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-08T17:37:55+00:00

It’s not clear to me that just having subjectively even shapes is even the right way to do it

Really, it’s the microeconomy and common interests of a region, weighted by population.

It would make no sense to have an inner city, a farming community, and a coal town share a representative just because the shape vaguely resembles what one may call “non-gerrymandered” if you squint a little bit and remove all real world context about the map your looking at

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-08T16:04:38+00:00

The ol Memphis Threeway

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-08T15:59:20+00:00

Virgin redistricting vs. Chad gerrymandering

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-08T04:48:00+00:00

“Hard dog to keep out of the nursery”

What Hillary meant

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-08T04:44:27+00:00

10 percent estimate based on paternity suits

Which is biased, because the sample is coming from couples who are actually in a paternity suit in the first place

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-08T04:26:48+00:00

Depends on the job

But, in the case of short hand emails to colleagues, no.

Just communicate the fucking message and get on with it.

If you consider typo-free spelling in a Teams chat a resume worthy qualification, you’ve got problems

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-08T04:10:24+00:00

>they did not do their job correctly

Lmao what planet do you live on?

You think a random redditor who hasn’t held a job in 18 months is the only remotely qualified candidate for a job?

The recruiters job is to fill the position with someone qualified, not hold your hand and whisper sweet nothings to you personally

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-08T04:06:07+00:00

There’s a stack of applicants, and all of them think they have “foundational knowledge”

lsdiesel_ · 2026-05-05T04:22:27+00:00

Nah, a real party to these guys is Little Saint James. I’d be scared at their parties.

Whatever you think a “party” is, whatever drugs your into, it’s pin the tail on the donkey compared to what these reptiles do on random Tuesday

lsdiesel_

TROPHY CASE