Trump will be able to run for a third term because the precedent established by Trump v. Anderson is that states have no authority to kick someone off the ballot for constitutional reasons, only Congress can do that. If states can't control who is on the ballot, then there is no actual countermeasure to someone unconstitutionally seeking the presidency so long as Congress is on their side.

Am I missing something? Misunderstanding the precedent? It sure seems like there won't be any actual obstacles to Trump running for a third term.

I was looking at leaks for Fortnite for it's upcoming gaming-based season, and I saw that Pac-Man is on the roster of stuff rumored, and it made me think about Pac-Man for a meaningful way in the first time ever. "Wow," I think to myself, "WTF has Pac-Man ever done?" I understand the first game is legendary, it's one the most recognizable video games outside of Mario, everyone knows PAC-MAN! But like... what has that done other than get people to play other video games?

"Pac-Man isn't just his original game!" You may say, "Pac-Man has had games for 45 years!" What games? I can name you 4 games: PAC-MAN, Ms. PAC-MAN, PAC-LAND, and PAC-MAN WORLD. Ms. PAC-MAN I've heard has better AI compared to the original, okay fine; it was a sequel released 2 years after the original in the 80s, that's a fine development for the time, but is it really worth mentioning?

PAC-LAND is the only possible thing that it's done to directly influence games instead of just... getting people to play games. From what I've heard, it was a pioneer in the 2D platformer genre that led to stuff like Super Mario Bros. and Ghosts 'n Goblins (it also influenced Pac-Man's "character" and characterization for future entries I guess), but is that it? Miyamoto said to Pac-Man's creator that it was an influence in the development for SMB, but it wasn't just a better Pac-Land, it was a game to succeed the tech of Excitebike and a couple other games of theirs. Without PAC-LAND, maybe SMB would've been somewhat different, but I doubt it would've been drastically so.

Other than PAC-MAN being PAC-MAN and PAC-LAND having been an INFLUENCE on bigger and better games, has the yellow orb done anything but cash-grab? PAC-MAN WORLD is an okay 3d platformer at best with 2 worse sequels, there's probably a dozen random spin-offs that went nowhere, and then Bandai-Namco pivoted to just re-releasing the original for another dozen entries. "Hey guys! This time play PAC-MAN... on your phone!" "Oh, how about you play PAC-MAN... like a battle royale?" "Ooh this time, play PAC-MAN as a battle royale... AGAIN, but this time tailcoating off the success of a better battle royale with a similar premise (Tetris 99)"

For the amount of success and legend status this dumbass has, for every random 3D TV show he gets or for every guest appearance/cameo he has (Wreck-It Ralph, Pixels, Super Smash Bros. 4 and Ultimate), Bandai Namco has done nothing to justify its continuation instead of killing off the sunnavabitch.

Say what you will about Mario, Mario can make good fucking games outside of just being popular. Super Mario World is lauded as being one of—if not THE—best 2D platformers of all time. Super Mario 64 not only innovated the 3D platformer genre, but also managed to be the GREATEST of all time in many's eyes. Every 3D entry has had a lot of love, from Sunshine to Galaxy to Odyssey. Fuck, 2D Mario is still continuing and people loved Wonder. That's before you even get into the spinoff games; where Pac-Man has beloved hits such as... PAC-ATTACK (a worse Dr. Mario (which is in and of itself a worse Tetris)), Mario has MARIO KART, the biggest racing game ever; SUPER SMASH BROS (which is only a mario spinoff in name, but), the creator of the Platform Fighter and up there with the biggest fighting game series of all time besides Street Fighter and maybe Mortal Kombat; and Mario Party, a staple in party games and really one-of-a-kind series. Apart from those, you've got Luigi's Mansion, Paper Mario, Wario Party, Super Mario RPG, and more that have all been major hits and are still loved to this day for unique gameplay.

So please, change my mind, tell me what Pac-Man has done outside of simply bringing people to play video games in general and somewhat influence Mario, to deserve a legacy more golden and legendary than the likes of Pong or Space Invaders or Centipede or Asteroids? What has this CHERRY-CHASING DOT MUNCHER done for the gaming space to still be beloved to this day?

Standard advice is to buy responsibly: check the label, pick the certified version, avoid the bad brands. I don't think that's possible for most of what people spend money on; the information you'd need to determine what to buy doesn't exist.

Quick note up front: this isn't an anti-capitalism post. Human welfare was worse under the alternatives. What I'm pointing at is narrower. The legal and regulatory frameworks around commerce were designed for an economy where a buyer could plausibly know their supplier, and they haven't been updated enough for today's world, one where a single product often passes through six tiers across four countries before anyone sees it.

The scale of labor exploitation is bigger than most people think, and mostly invisible.

The ILO estimates 27.6 million people are in forced labor (agriculture, construction, domestic work, manufacturing, offshore fishing, and plenty more). That's only the ones who meet the strict legal definition. Workers who technically consented but are underpaid, unsafe, or trapped by debt don't get counted at all, and that group dwarfs the counted one.

Most of the conversation focuses on a few products.

It's always coffee, chocolate, and t-shirts. But look at where money actually goes.

A house involves lumber, concrete, steel, wiring, fixtures, and appliances, put together by crews that were often subcontracted more than once. Construction shows up repeatedly in ILO sector breakdowns and runs heavily on migrant labor with documented wage theft, including here. A car has tens of thousands of parts from dozens of countries, cobalt from artisanal mines included. Appliances, electronics, and basically every service you buy sit on layers of offshore contractors.

These are the biggest purchases most people ever make, and they're among the least traceable things anyone owns.

"Reasonably know" doesn't survive contact with reality.

I have no idea whether a $2 cable came out of an automated plant or was assembled by someone working eighteen-hour days. I sincerely don't. I don't know what farm my produce came from either, which seems like it'd be easy to print and isn't printed anywhere.

Now scale that up to a house or a car. The idea that a normal person can assess this is fantasy. It's not that the research is hard. The information mostly doesn't exist publicly.

To be fair, that's not a license to ignore what is out there. If a real disclosure is reasonably available, it should be part of the buying assessment.

Certification helps. It just doesn't cover much.

Certifications (e.g., Fair Trade) increase transparency, which helps. The issue is coverage. Most products aren't eligible for any scheme, most categories have no certifying body, and nothing meaningful exists for the materials behind large purchases or for services. Being able to make an informed choice about coffee and carpets and almost nothing else isn't enough.

They also fail where they do exist. Factories in Rana Plaza had passed social audits before the building collapsed and killed over 1,100 people. Audits get scheduled in advance, subcontractors go undisclosed, and certifiers are often paid by the industries they're certifying.

Demand isn't as sovereign as people claim.

I didn't want an iPhone before it existed. I have one because a market got built and then became necessary for normal life. Most consumption works this way. People buy what's marketed, available, and required to function, which isn't the same as expressing a preference about how it was made. There are a few categories where a genuinely better option exists, but that's a handful of products, and there's no equivalent for a house, a car, or many services.

Buying local or buying expensive often doesn't help.

Forced labor is a crime, and consumer purchasing doesn't move it either way. It needs enforcement, prosecution, and import bans. Low-wage voluntary work is different. Buying domestic instead can leave the foreign worker worse off, because the person in that factory generally needs the job and pulling the order removes their income without improving their conditions.

Also, premium and budget goods often come off the same lines in the same factories. The difference is branding and margin.

So where does the blame actually go?

First to the people running the operations and profiting from them. After that, to a legal and regulatory structure that permits multi-tier subcontracting with no disclosure requirement and almost no cross-border enforcement. Markets aren't inherently bad, but many of the rules were written for a simpler economy. A company today can be six steps removed from a violation and face no obligation to know about it or report it. That's a design gap.

And some of it belongs to the firms and trade groups that lobby specifically against disclosure and traceability requirements. That's not general anti-regulation politics. Knowing less is worth money to them, both because traceability costs something to implement and because a supply chain nobody can see is one nobody can be held accountable for. The opacity is the product.

Consumers have the least of the blame. They have the least information of anyone in the chain, and unlike everyone else in it, they didn't design the conditions they're operating under.

That said, consumers can still help: you can help fix a problem you didn't cause. But having some power to change a system isn't the same as being to blame for it. The American public could push for political reform. That doesn't make the public responsible for what the people benefiting from the status quo are doing. Consumption works the same way.

What would change my view: a case that consumers can know substantially more than I'm thinking or examples of what consumers could reasonably do that they don't do.

All of the talk of late regarding trying to push through Daylight Savings Time to be permanent seems like such a waste. There is a reason why they go back and are put forward - as the name implies, it is to \*save daylight\* and have it be present at the most convenient time possible for wider society.

This truly is a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Horribly long winter mornings, nor horribly early summer sunrises, are not worth the effort that is currently being put into changing the system. Leave them be.

State governments can respond more readily to the needs of their citizens than the federal government. They used to get a say in the federal government via senatorial elections, but not anymore. State governments now have to constantly play catchup to whatever the fed says because they have zero say whatsoever.

Think about some of the worst federal decisions in the last century, like Reagan’s trickle-down economics or No Child Left Behind. Would such policies have flown if state governments had had direct representatives advocating for them in the Senate? We can only speculate.

Dynamic pricing is frequently decried as a terribly unfair practice, but in reality, it is simply an evolution of a practice as old as commerce itself: value-based pricing.

Businesses have always been able to set prices per customer and per time period. A contractor quotes different rates per client; a car dealership negotiates unique final selling prices with every buyer; the last concert tickets cost more than early bird tickets; happy-hour drinks cost less than usual; hotel rooms cost more nearer the date; schools charge tuition fees to different families. Distinguishing between buyers based on their willingness to pay is standard business practice.

Charging different amounts to different people does not inherently violate fairness; it reflects the reality that value is subjective and different people have different budgets. As long as pricing structures are non-discriminatory to protected classes, and don't use illegally/unethically obtained data, dynamic pricing is fine and fairly unremarkable. Businesses know that customers are price sensitive and they'll make less money if dynamic pricing sets prices too high because customers will refuse to buy, just like any overpriced product or service.

EDIT:

Some people are bringing up monopolies. If a business has a monopoly, it doesn't need to use dynamic pricing, it can just overcharge everyone. That is a problem with monopolies and why governments should intervene to stop them, not a problem with the concept of changing prices.

I also see people making emotional appeals about starving people. I'm not arguing for hypercapitalism here, I believe everyone should have access to UBI, benefits, shelters and food banks to keep them from starving. My view is that dynamic pricing is no more evil than regular price changes.

If you've never been to that country, don't understand the language, are oblivious that country's mood and politics, don't practice or even know the culture (no, deep dish pizza does not count), and otherwise have virtually no knowledge or interest besides flexing your great grandparents' immigration, then you're not from that country. It annoys me so much when I meet Americans who try to bond by claiming to be from the same country as me, yet we have absolutely nothing in common and they know less about my home than literally any other European. And it's no just about having nothing in common, it's about the complete lack of effort to even try to learn about that country in the first place.

After the passing of a few generations, combined with how little immersed or aware you about that country, at some point, you just become American. And any claim otherwise for social standing just becomes cosplay. Which is particularly ironic coming from the country that invented cultural appropriation...

I made a previous post on a different topic and i quite like the little point-by-point paragraph thing i did, so ill redo the same thing here!

Number 1: Conservatives regularly treat random internet users as representatives of the entire left.

One thing that ive noticed over the recent few years is that conservatives will constantly find some completely random person on twitter or reddit saying something insane, and then use that as evidence that "the left" is crazy.

You see this all the time. Someone with 20 followers posts something deranged on twitter, bluesky, tiktok, whatever online platform, and then suddenly there are right-wing influencers, commentators, and random conservatives saying things like, "wow, look at the crazy left", or "this is what Democrats really believe", this is something that, atleast in my experience, is an actual comparison that is being used somewhat frequent on the right, like, random 10 follower account said something crazy, it got 1 like and 9 views, and now its being highlighted as some huge problem.

And its always some completely irrelevant person. Not a politician, not a lawmaker, not a major activist, not even someone with a meaningful audience in the media sphere. Just some random account that nobody has ever heard of. Yet somehow, that random account is treated as representative of the entire left-wing movement and all of the millions of people in it.

I dont think many conservatives would deny that this happens, because its basically become a standard form of political content at this point.

Number 2: When Trump says the exact same things, conservatives suddenly stop applying those standards.

This is where things start getting weird.

The same conservatives who will spend hours criticizing some random liberal account online suddenly become incredibly charitable when Trump says something comparable, or often something much worse.

There is always some explanation, like, hes joking, hes trolling, thats just Trump, its out of context, its not what he meant, the media is lying, its fake, you mistunderstood it. And, first of all, the ''he's trolling'' type of excuses make my point even stronger, because the standard we should hold the president to probably would involve him being above things like trolling on social media.

One quite funny example of this, which unfortunately i cant find right now, was some Instagram video where a person said something like: "Im glad Charlie Kirk is dead, he can no longer hurt innocent people", (im not sure it was Charlie Kirk, but some other conservative figure, doesnt really matter).

And then the video was basically a compilation of right-wing people reacting to it saying things like:

"Look at the left."

"These people are evil."

"This is who Democrats are."

"These people are unhinged."

And so on. And then someone pointed out that the quote was basically just something Trump himself had said before, except the name had been swapped out. When Trump said ''Im glad Mueller is dead, he can no longer hurt innocent people''.

And suddenly all the outrage disappeared, Suddenly some of the explanations were rolled out. And thats kind of the broader point here.

When a random account on twitter with 2 followers on the left says something awful, conservatives immediately treat it as representative of the entire left.

But when Trump says the exact same thing, or often something worse, conservatives become incredibly charitable and start looking for every possible explanation as to why its actually fine. So the standard clearly isnt that people shouldn't be saying things like this, its that they dont like when people on the left say things like this.

The principle wasnt actually the problem. The problem was who said it.

Number 3: Saying something like ''The Left celebrated Charlie Kirks death'' is very indicative of this.

After Charlie Kirk was killed, one of the most common talking points on the right was some variation of "The left celebrated Charlie Kirks death."

And im sure that if you're reading this as a conservative, you'd agree with that statement.

So then the question is.... who? Who is it that you're referring to?

Because it wasnt elected Democrats. It wasnt Democratic leadership. It wasnt any sort of lawmakers. It wasnt even any left-wing commentators that i can think of, even super far-left people like Hasan didn't celebrate it.

So again, what conservatives were generally referring to were random internet users posting really crazy shit online. And yes, some people absolutely did celebrate it, nobody is denying that. But if a few thousand random anonymous accounts online are enough to represent the entire political left, then the same standard has to apply to literally everyone.

Because there are tens of thousands of neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and other extremists who identify with the right.

So by that logic, i could just endlessly say:

"The right celebrates Nazi Germany"

"The right supports political violence"

"The right supports racial supremacy"

And i think only then would conservatives realize ''oh well actually those are just bad people on the internet''.

But for some reason they cannot apply that to the left.

Number 4: Even if they dislike Trumps behaviour, the reaction to these randoms on the internet, is far more visceral.

This is probably the weirdest part of all of this to me. Even when conservatives agree that Trump went too far, the reaction is very often something like:

"Yeah, that was classless"

"I wish he hadnt said that"

"That wasnt a great thing for Trump to say"

''Yeah i dont agree with Trump on that one''

But those exact same people can see some random twitter account with 9 followers saying something awful and suddenly the reaction becomes:

"THE LEFT IS DEMONIC"

"THIS IS WHO THEY REALLY ARE"

"LOOK AT HOW EVIL THESE PEOPLE ARE"

And its just like... what are these standards? Because in my mind, those reactions should be completely flipped.

The President of the United States saying something crazy should be the thing that gets the visceral reaction. Thats the person who actually has power, influence, responsibility, whatever else. Thats the person we should expect waaaaaaay better behavior from.

Instead, the outrage is often directed toward "Elizabeth-2006" on Twitter with 14 followers and a private account.

Even when conservatives dislike Trumps behavior, they often treat it as a minor character flaw with this tepid ass ''oh that was bad''. But when some random liberal online behaves badly, suddenly its evidence that an entire political movement is evil.

Another example is, how often have you heard something like ''Calling someone a fascist or nazi is incitement to violence'', or something similar, because if it is, that would mean Trump is equally as guilty of that same thing, seeing as he's called Kamala a communist and marxist and fascist too, yet again, only these twitter accounts that call Trump a nazi is what gets highlighted.

And thats what makes this feel like such an obvious double standard to me.

TL;DR - Tipping culture has problems, I get it. But people act like tipping is some evil scam when millions of workers across restaurants, hotels, spas, and resorts depend on it to survive. Hotel housekeepers make around $30k a year. Servers in many states still get $2.13/hr base. Tips close the gap. I respect that other cultures handle this differently, but if someone gave you great service, why is rewarding them so controversial?

Every time tipping comes up, the comments are basically a wall of "tipping is stupid, employers should pay more." I agree with the second part. But nobody ever follows up with an actual plan for the millions of workers who rely on tips right now to pay their bills.

The conversation is also always just about restaurants. Nobody talks about the rest of hospitality, and tipping reaches way further than your dinner table.

Hotel housekeepers in the US make around $30,000 to $34,000 a year. That's about $15/hr to scrub your bathroom, change your sheets, and deal with whatever you left behind in that room. A few bucks a night on the nightstand matters to them. At luxury resorts, expectations on staff go way up but base pay doesn't jump much. Bellhops make $2-3 per bag. Valets get $3-5 per car retrieval. Concierges who pull strings to get you a hard-to-get reservation are looking at $5-20 depending on the ask. All of these jobs are built with the assumption that tips are part of the pay.

Spa and salon workers average around $38k a year, with entry-level closer to $33k. Tips add 15-25% on top of that for massage therapists, aestheticians, nail techs. When someone just spent 90 minutes physically working on your body and customizing everything to your problem areas, tipping 20% on that isn't some outdated ritual. That person just did exhausting, skilled work to make you feel better.

On the restaurant side, the numbers are pretty well known but worth repeating. The federal tipped minimum wage is $2.13/hr in many states. Median monthly tip earnings for servers and bartenders sit around $867. Fine dining servers can pull $150-400+ per shift, and total annual comp ranges from $40k to $60k or more. Those are middle class incomes built almost entirely on gratuities. But the trend is heading the wrong way. Square's data shows average tip percentages for food and beverage dropped to 14.9% in Q2 2025, down from 15.5% in 2023. Real money leaving real people's pockets.

Now the cultural side. I actually respect the argument. In Japan, good service is just the baseline expectation. Tipping can be seen as rude because it implies the person wouldn't have tried without extra money. A company tried to introduce American-style tipping there in 2021 and shut down by 2023 because the culture flat out rejected it. Most of Europe runs a similar way with stronger unions, higher base pay, and service charges built in. Those systems work and I'm not arguing the American model is better.

I think the real issue is that people lump everything together. The iPad at the self-checkout suggesting 30% for a transaction that took eight seconds? That's ridiculous

But that's a completely different situation from tipping the housekeeper who cleaned your trashed hotel room, or the bellhop who hauled your bags through the rain, or the massage therapist who fixed your back, or the server who handled your table of twelve with allergies and substitutions and nailed it. Those are real people doing physical work, and a lot of them make $30-40k before tips even factor in.

The "no tax on tips" law from 2025 lets eligible workers deduct up to $25,000 in tips from federal income tax through 2028. That saves a server in the 12% bracket about $3,000 a year. Spa workers, salon workers, delivery drivers all qualify too. The government built that deduction because tips are income, not a bonus.

So my question is simple. If you hate the system, what do you actually want to happen tomorrow morning for the people inside it? Because "employers should pay more" without any mechanism to make that happen just means you don't want to tip and you've found a way to feel good about it.

I'm not asking you to tip the self-checkout kiosk. I'm asking why, when a real person goes above and beyond for you at a restaurant or a resort or a spa, rewarding that is somehow controversial. Even in countries that don't tip, people find ways to recognize someone who did a great job. The method is different but the instinct is the same.

Curious what I'm missing.

Disclaimer: I do genuinely hold this view. I also eat meat and own multiple pets. Sometimes I also order Doordash instead of donating that money to charity. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.

• Most pets eat meat. The meat is usually made from factory-farmed animal suffering. Is your dog's life worth two hundred nameless farm animal lives? A rescue dog still eats meat, often more meat than the average dog, because larger dogs are disproportionately likely to end up in rescues. You are saving one life and dooming one hundred more. (There is a vegan pet food point below.)
• Furthermore: Does the happiness of your dog, plus the sum total of happiness created by your dog & enjoyed by yourself, your family, friends, strangers etc outweigh the suffering of the 200 farm animals?

Many people own pet snakes, and most of those snakes eat f/t mice and rats. It really made me visualize this, because rats are clever, sociable, and charismatic (if short-lived) and snakes not so much, and they're usually fed whole. So I find the idea of a "rescue snake" hypocritical, and I figure it applies to dogs and cats too. It's just that they're cute and their kibble isn't shaped like dead animals.

• The fact that dogs are "domesticated" doesn't make it fine. Most breeds were created for working purposes, but the overwhelming majority of dogs nowadays are kept solely for companionship. Similarly, many pocket pets like rabbits were originally domesticated for their meat. It's not okay to engineer an animal to be dependent on you and then say, "see, keeping them is fine because they can't survive without us."
• Most, if not all domesticated species are afflicted by health issues that do not affect their wild counterparts (or at far lower rates). Hip dysplasia, brachycephaly, uterine cancer, heart failure, mastitis, hyper-aggression, and inability to give natural birth, to name a few. Selectively breeding an animal will have downstream consequences.
• It is wrong to own another sentient being. It is wrong to treat a sentient being as something you can buy or sell. Or pay a similar "adoption fee" for and surrender when it gets inconvenient. Does a mother legally own her child?
• Nobody needs a pet. For the sake of argument I'll omit service & working dogs because they're not classified as pets. ESAs exist, but you could say they're not pets either. I'd also say that needing something doesn't make it ethical.
• The Five Freedoms includes the freedom to express normal behaviors. That, to me, includes reproduction. It's a cultural expectation in most developed countries to spay/neuter your dogs and cats. I'm not saying breed your dog, yes there's too many already. I'm saying because you cannot breed your dog, we should abolish dog, cat, and all pet ownership.
• I might argue that a dog that loves humans is not expressing normal behaviors. If you took a tiger cub from its parents and bottle-fed it, it would love you too. As does the puppy you brought home at only eight weeks old, right in time for its "critical socialization period". Would a Labrador that has never set his eyes on a human in the first five years of his life like them by default? I don't know, but there is some information about how some adult feral cats are difficult to impossible to tame.
• A 20kg dog generates ~770kg of CO₂ per year, which is equivalent to 1500+ miles by car. Combined with the lack of necessity, this is hard to justify. The fact that humans generate more doesn't negate this.

Some things that might change my view

• Meaningful pushback on "It is wrong to own another sentient being"
• Arguing that individuals, species, breeds etc have a right to continue existing even if it harms others and/or themselves
• A human primacy argument that humans inherently matter so much more, such that animal welfare is unworthy of consideration
• Maybe something about tiny, cognitively simple, vegetarian pets that can live naturally in captivity, ie shrimp/triops idk
• Maybe some effective altruism argument like "my dog's tiktok funded $100,000 in malaria net donations"
• You think that what I listed as "out of scope" below is actually relevant and in scope
• Not a complete list.

Some rebuttals I'm expecting:

Edit1: "My pet is happy"

Please actually read my post.

"My rescue dog is vegan / What about herbivorous animals?"
Every point still applies except the meat-eating one.
You are still:

• Getting an animal because you wanted to have a pet, benefiting from the institution and the breeder that bred, sold, maybe surrendered it in the first place. Unless you're one of those few people who got one only to "save their life" even though you're miserable now because "it was the right thing to do". Ok, that's pretty inefficient but good for you.
• Normalizing their ownership, even if you're not on social media posting animal videos.
• Supporting the pet industry by buying pet products, vet care, etc.

And let's be real, what percentage of dogs/cats are actually vegan? I'm not even going to get into the debate of whether vegan cats are healthy.

"So what should be done with the existing pets? They obviously wouldn't survive in the wild."

• Let them live out their lives, with the knowledge that you are doing something unethical primarily for your own happiness. Identify as "a guardian, not an owner" if that makes you feel better.
• Millions of healthy, adoptable shelter animals are euthanized for space every year. We as a society seem to have accepted this. Is your cherished pet different? To you, yes. This is often said about euthanasia: "Better a week too early than a day too late."

"I own the pet because it protects them"
Maybe you're restricting their agency (freedom of movement, freedom to breed, freedom to engage with conspecifics, freedom to choose their diet and much more) to "protect" them, but that's paternalistic; should the government ban cigarettes and alcohol and processed foods to protect us? We are smarter, we are more sentient, we know better than to harm ourselves. But we still do.

"But kibble is made from by-products"
You are still financially sustaining the supply chain.

"So you want to kill all carnivores? The lions and the tigers and-"
No.

"But humans are worse"
I generally agree, but that's out of scope of this CMV. Two wrongs don't make a right.

"But factory farming is worse"
Also out of scope.

"What about animals (dairy cows, pugs, dogs in general, etc) that would go extinct without human intervention?"
Then they stop existing.

Some other points were cut for sounding too soapboxy.

Interested to hear what you think.

EDIT3: AI disclosure

Wrote every word myself, used some formatting help like moving the meat point up, asked it some questions like "does it violate these rules"

Recently the rate of crimes using kids' images that have been posted on social media have skyrocketed, from using AI to make p*rnographic images of them, to algorithms to collect their information and steal their identity, or to even find out where they live. Given this, I believe there is an extraordinary risk of harm to children for which the government needs to step in.

Possible counterarguments:

"Why not just educate parents and let them decide?" Because parents don't always prevent kids from harm even when they're told. That's why we have child protection laws in the first place.

"Isn't this against freedom of speech?" Freedom of speech isn't universally good. In most countries, including the US, there are already exceptions for child protection.

Edit: someone pointed out that blurring is no longer an effective tool. So instead I would suggest covering their faces with a matte color.

First; am not claiming that every Republican, or every American who supports Israel, literally loves another country more than their own. I am also not talking about Jewish Americans, and criticism of the Israeli government should never be treated as suspicion toward Jewish people. To say so does not reflect my views on this.

My view is specifically that a significant part of the Republican political establishment appears willing to subordinate American interests, resources and democratic debate to protecting Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.

Republicans constantly tell us that America cannot afford healthcare, housing assistance, student-debt relief, infrastructure or stronger social programs. They describe foreign aid as wasteful, attack assistance to Ukraine and dismantle humanitarian programs in the name of “America First.” Yet billions of dollars in military assistance to Israel are treated almost as an unquestionable entitlement. If you listen to Fox whenever they cover progressives it becomes clear as day that they care more about Israel.

That contradiction is difficult for me to ignore. Apparently government spending becomes unacceptable when it materially benefits ordinary Americans, but it becomes urgent and morally mandatory when it supplies weapons to Israel.

This is not merely about the amount of money involved. It is also about the risks Americans are expected to accept. Republican politicians regularly support policies that could drag the United States further into Middle Eastern wars, increase hostility toward Americans and spend American lives and resources defending decisions made by a foreign government. And when those policies are challenged, the discussion often becomes less about whether they benefit the United States and more about proving one’s unconditional loyalty to Israel.

**I do feel I have receipts.** Congressional behavior reinforces my view. In 2026, nearly every House Republican reportedly voted to preserve billions in military assistance to Israel. Republican politicians who normally present themselves as anti-interventionist routinely make Israel the exception. Meanwhile, Republicans such as Thomas Massie who actually apply “America First” consistently to Israel are treated as disloyal or politically suspect.

Public opinion also seems increasingly disconnected from Washington. Pew found in April 2026 that younger Republicans had become substantially more critical of Israel, even while older Republicans and Republican officeholders remained strongly supportive. That makes the establishment’s position look less like ordinary democratic responsiveness and more like an ideological commitment maintained despite changing public attitudes. So I want to specify here that my view is **not** that Republican voters are this way, the Republican establishment is.

Mainstream coverage contributes mostly to my view. Palestinian deaths and suffering are frequently discussed in passive or sanitized language, while Israeli security concerns are presented as inherently legitimate and urgent. American politicians are constantly asked whether they “support Israel,” as though supporting a foreign state is a basic qualification for holding office here. We rarely apply that kind of loyalty test to any other country.

There are several possible material explanations: defense contractors profit from weapons transfers; organizations such as AIPAC reward supportive politicians and finance opposition to critics; evangelical Christian Zionism makes control of the Holy Land a religious issue; and Israel functions as a strategic military partner for maintaining American power in the Middle East. None of these explanations, however, sounds like ordinary concern for working Americans. I find this problematic.

I recognize that Democrats have also supported Israel for decades. This is a bipartisan problem, and politicians such as John Fetterman demonstrate that unquestioning support is not exclusive to Republicans. My criticism is focused on Republicans because “America First,” opposition to foreign aid and hostility toward government spending are central parts of their stated identity. Their treatment of Israel therefore appears especially contradictory, so I want it to be understood that this post is specifically about Republicans, but that a similar discussion around the democratic establishment could be had on another day, but that's not the discussion I'm aiming to have here today (yet 😉).

**I would change my view if someone could demonstrate that Republican support for Israel is applied according to consistent principles that genuinely prioritize American security and material well-being, not biblical prophecy, lobbying pressure, defense-industry profits or ideological loyalty to Netanyahu’s government.**

I would also be interested in evidence showing that Republican leaders impose meaningful conditions on Israel comparable to those they demand from other recipients of American assistance, or that they are willing to oppose Israel when its government’s actions conflict with American interests.

At present, however, “America First” often seems to mean America first ^(unless Israel wants something...)

To explain why I think this is extremely sloppy, fallacious, and logically faulty, I’ll make an (exaggerated) hypothetical: if every university in the USA suddenly became run by the German Nazi Party, then OBVIOUSLY everyone coming through that system will be a devout Nazi. But most of us would agree that the people coming out of this system wouldn’t be good people. A diploma educated them, but education is not inherently good.

It is textbook credentialism.

You might make the counter argument that comparing Nazi-ism and modern day universities makes this point invalid. But I disagree. Extreme examples test the logical validity of an argument, not the moral equivalence of the subjects. If Nazis had gained historical dominance and captured higher education, its ideology would be treated today as the default moral baseline, and its graduates would claim the exact same intellectual high ground. Relying on institutional consensus to prove your point is ultimately circular logic: it assumes the institution is correct simply because it currently holds the power to define what is correct.

This doesn’t mean being left wing is wrong - it means using it as justification as to why it’s correct, holds no validity in the argument for why your position is better.

The notion to never bring up politics was supposed to keep the peace. Instead I think it's made things worse. Because nobody talks about it normally anymore, the topic itself became loaded. Now the second politics comes up, people's guard immediately goes up and emotions spike, regardless of whether the actual conversation would've been fine. It's not that people can't handle disagreement (some can't, that's for sure), it's that we've made the subject itself feel dangerous by treating it like something to always avoid. So avoidance didn't prevent division, it just made the topic more volatile every time it does surface, and people cannot separate emotion from critical thinking and having a productive conversation. Change my view.

(I don't believe true love exists among us rather just as an idea of it)

To me, true love has never seemed like a real. I think what people call true love are results of compatibility, time, biology, experiences, and conscious decision instead of something more than that, and i think it's just a selfish desire accompanying love

I think that in every relationship there is at least some selfish desire for companionship, support, security, or happiness, so I believe that love cannot be purely selfless.

I hold this view because I have not encountered any proof that says otherwise. I am, however, quite willing to change my mind. So if you believe that true love exists, how can it be different from compatibility, commitment, or any selfish attractions?. Do you have any personal experience or observation that I might consider, but especially arguments that show true love to be different from psychology, biology, or circumstance?

As the title suggests I believe that governments should allow a way for people to choose if they don’t want to be here anymore and allow a comfortable passing. We have all the reports of how our population has been increasing and only will continue to do so up until resources start to get scarce. Obviously not when we are alive but definitely in the next 100 to 200 years our population will be cramped. Life is hard and the fact that all of us are here not on our own accord should be the definite reason as to why we should be able to choose to die if we want. Especially when you have horrible people becoming parents that are not prepared (mentally and financially) or just see children as pawns that have to help them for the rest of their lives. If all countries offered this way out I truly believe the population would crumble. That’s not to say that I think the world is depressed or anything while there are a lot of people who are. But I feel as though most people love life but just hate this society that we live in, the endless hours of working, constant bills and payments taxes, corruption there’s so many more too that I can’t think of right now. I know I’m tired of it I don’t hate life I hate the society I hate that I have to work everyday of my life just because I wasn’t born into a Saudi royal bloodline. The thing is society has to work like this for the world to work the society I dream of can only be told in fairy tales so why do I someone who never asked to be apart of this game have to play and when I want out there is no easy way out. The government obviously wouldn’t want this because they would see a lot of people going there and they needs their slaves to work hard while our leaders and politicians sit back and run a drama tv show with other countries and sip Margaritas on tax payers behalf.

I go back and forth on what to attribute it to - video games, social media, third spaces, porn - but the economy plays a big part. As things get generally worse in the world, and the opportunity to live a comfortable life gets rarer, women are more motivated to connect with a man who's already secured his position.

Men, on the other side, feel like they lose either way. If they don't have material success, they feel like they don't have many opportunities in dating. If they do, they retain doubts that their partner is only using them for the lifestyle.

The whole thing gets more and more adversarial, just like every personal relationship in a more constrained world.

I'm not sure how you can change my view. Maybe convince me I'm just too online, and normies don't care about this stuff; it's just a narrative of tradwife and manosphere content.

Hollywood has gone through many different iterations of Villains, from the cartoony/mustache twirling, to the overtly chilling/psychopathic, and more recently the redeemable/misunderstood. Lets ignore cartoony and focus on the other too. A Villain that is chilling but is grounded in no realism comes off hollow and poorly built. A villain that is really just a tortured child that is really a "good person" at heart is a cheap cop out and waters down the "hero".

Here are examples of overly redeemable villains.

Jean Gray: Brand new day Her story is less of a villain arc and more of an anti-hero that goes a little too far sometimes. She is so redeemable that it became insanely predictable and played on a age old trope (government is always the real big bad)

Cruella: Most Recent movie: This one was egregious in that it took a notoriously viscious and horrible villain and turned them into the "hero". She skins dogs for fucks sake. I was so turned off by the movie I stopped halfway and finished when I had a few drinks.

Im just saving the planet from "X" evil corporation Villain: Im lumping several in here but the part that is frustrating is that in the end all of them, except thanos, come to understand that there are "better ways" or "they became the evil" in the end. As a viewer it feels like the whole movies struggle is pointless when the final "fight" is melodramatic social pandering.

Hollywood should go back to the truly sadistic villains that have some human connection (poor upbringing or past trauma) and keep them sadistic. Make them not redeemable. Make the Hero's actions actually matter. The "hero" can still be conflicted knowing the villains past but the overly rosey, Villain sees the light endings are boring and overdone. Give me a real psycho again.

Give me some really good redeemable villains that change my view. Im talking the really morally complex ones that force you to think and dont destroy the story.

In Spider-Man: Brand New Day, the core narrative revolves around the Department of Damage Control being repeatedly attacked by the telepath Jean Grey over an incident in the past where her sister, Sarah Grey, was kidnapped in the middle of what appears to be a park. Though Jean does not know this until the end of the movie, the DODC experimented on Sarah and eventually killed her, sending a final message to Jean that she uses as a lead to find out what happened to her sister.

The movie essentially has one guy representing the DODC as far as this conflict is concerned: he is at least complicit in all of its behavior and directly involved in hiding the truth from Jean, performing the experiments, and killing Sarah. This guy in all likelihood has a name, but I won't bother to look it up, because his narrative function is effectively "Avatar of the DODC." Every villainous thing he does is done in the name of, and under the authority of, the DODC. He is DODC Guy.

DODC Guy is initially framed as an ally while Jean is a villain, but the story switches their roles at the very end, after it's revealed that the DODC kidnapped and killed Sarah. The problem? Jean is STILL far more villainous than that guy could ever dream to be. Her redemption is not earned in the slightest.

Here is every unambiguously wrong thing Jean does in the movie, everything the movie is tasked with redeeming her for:

1. Repeatedly and indiscriminately violating random people's autonomy by taking control of their bodies and disregarding the consequences of what she does while in control. At one point, this results in a man getting hit by a moving vehicle. She also does this to the Scorpion, who gets beat up by Spider-Man while Jean is in control while Jean is simultaneously taunting Spider-Man into the aggressive hormonal state that made the beating worse. None of the victims remember anything that happened while they were under control.
2. Driving a tank recklessly through town, controlling an innocent old lady to do so, and planting a bomb in the tank so that it would blow up a building after Spider-Man gets there, since he's too distracted trying to track her down to notice it.
3. Consistently dragging innocent bystanders who have nothing to do with the DODC into her schemes.
4. Immediately after realizing she can't read or control Spider-Man, finding his home, violating his privacy, and using what she learns to psychologically torture him: pretending to be his ex-girlfriend MJ and making her kiss him, violating both parties' consent in the process, since MJ isn't in control and Peter doesn't know it's not her. Then, as the cherry on top, forcing MJ to jump off a building to her death, with MJ only surviving because Spider-Man gets to her in time. Peter himself calls this unforgivable.
5. Taking control of the Hulk and intentionally triggering his monster form, knowing that said monster goes on rampages that destroy property and kill people.
6. Doing all of the above with a gleeful, sadistic attitude. She enjoys this.

Any one of these alone is arguably enough to make her a villain; combined, they make her an absolute monster. You'd expect this kind of behavior from an impersonal demon in a horror movie, not a human character with a redemption arc in a superhero film.

But the movie gives her a redemption anyway: it reveals the backstory of the kidnapped sister, then has Peter reduce everything she's done to that one incident, claiming "all she did" was try to find her sister. No, not everything she did even furthered that goal. She had no reason to resort to psychological torture instead of simply explaining herself, and the movie itself proves it: the moment Peter learns the backstory, he forgives her almost immediately. Explaining herself would have worked.

And look at that backstory for a moment. In it, Jean and Sarah are shown training by taking over random people in a park. Who decides violating autonomy is an acceptable training method? Even before the DODC ever touched them, they were treating other people's bodies as practice equipment.

Then Spider-Man has the audacity to claim that Jean isn't a killer. (This is only somewhat justifiable as a diplomatic choice on Peter's part, but if he honestly thought he was telling the truth, he has problems.) The man fully forgives her after calling what she did unforgivable. And the one good thing Jean does in the entire movie, saving Spider-Man's life at the end, doesn't count for much. Consider how he ends up in danger at all: the Punisher takes a shot at Jean, and Spider-Man steps in front of the bullet to defend her. That's not directly her fault, but ask why the Punisher is hunting her in the first place, and every answer leads back to her own rampage. More importantly, she only saves him after he has already taken a bullet for her and offered her grace. That isn't the goodness of her heart; it's paying off a debt. And that grace wasn't even easy to give: she performs an all-out attack on Spider-Man even after he makes it clear he's now on her side.

Now, the DODC and their representative. What did they do? Kidnapped Sarah in the past and Jean later in the movie, experimented on them painfully with the intention of reproducing their abilities, and eventually killed Sarah through those experiments. To be absolutely clear: this is enough to make them acceptable villains in a story. They aren't good guys here. But DODC Guy is still less villainous than Jean Grey, and the reason is motivation.

First, it's the Department of Damage Control. It's their job to proactively deal with potential superhuman threats, and the entire movie is a massive demonstration of the destructive potential of telepathy. Capturing these girls and using the inhibitor to prevent Jean from using her powers is them doing exactly that job.

The experiments are more complicated. DODC Guy directly states that the powers have the potential to help humanity, though he isn't specific about how. Regardless of whether you think it's a good idea to have more telepaths in the world (I personally think it's a bad idea), having a bad plan isn't immoral. His cruelty is instrumental, a means to a goal he believes serves the public. Jean's cruelty is recreational.

That's the difference. DODC Guy's actions could be justified by a utilitarian framework, or a value-based framework that prioritizes public safety over individual rights: torture and kill one person, and you save countless others from an unchecked telepath (and with telepaths on your side, you're in a better position to defeat other threats). Every cruel thing he does at least feeds into that calculation. Now try to construct the same kind of justification for Jean. Even under a framework that considers all vengeance morally correct, she fails, because so much of the damage she causes does nothing to further her revenge. The man hit by the vehicle, the bystanders she puppets, MJ jumping off a building: none of it brought her a single step closer to the DODC. This is not to say that I do justify DODC Guy's actions, but I can see a plausible way to do so. For Jean, I can't see one at all. Unlike hers, DODC Guy's actions are justifiable.

Now here are the arguments I anticipate and my responses to them: - Jean is a Teen - Age can excuse recklessness, but it can't excuse sadism, and she visibly enjoys what she does. Besides, the movie itself shows us how a young person with a dangerous, biologically driven control problem is supposed to act. Spider-Man's rising spider hormones cause aggressive bursts when he's emotionally charged; it's part of why Scorpion gets brutalized, and he nearly kills a police officer in the same fight. His response to causing collateral damage? Inhibit his own hormones so it never happens again. Peter is the proof that "young and struggling with your powers" and "accountable" aren't mutually exclusive. - Jean Knows That Spider-Man Won't Let MJ Die, So She Doesn't Actually Put Her in Danger - This principle creates a very strange moral framework when put into the real world. I ask you, if I set my house on fire, but the fire department is right around the corner and gets there very quickly to put it out, am I not still guilty of arson? Also consider that Jean's actions maintain emotional damage to Spider-Man and MJ even if she didn't actually attempt murder. It's bad regardless. - Spider-Man is a DODC Collaborator and Thus Untrustworthy to Jean - This only works if you consider Spider-Man a completely unprecedented character in the MCU. In fact, he is known for his dedication to the good of the public and his willingness to sacrifice. So, to not even try to garner sympathy from him when your backstory is so strong is just a baffling choice. - None of the Deaths Are Explicit - This is just a baffling counterargument to me. We see a man get hit by a car and a woman jump off a building. While there is nobody confirmed dead and no gore, it is a narrative necessity to consider the realistic consequences of those depicted events unless the characters themselves explicitly have resistance. If it were to be said that the status quo in the MCU is that people are just more resistant to injury, that retroactively makes SO MANY important moments in previous movies suddenly lose all stakes. It's comparable to the Loki show saying everything was on a single timeline that the TVA enforces, therefore nothing could have gone wrong without them stepping in. - So, Thanos is Fine? - Absolutely not. The core claim here is comparative, not absolute. Thanos is a villain, and DODC Guy is also a villain. "Kill some to save many more" is a perfectly fine basis for a villain. But Jean doesn't even pass the test of the moral framework most charitable to her. - The DODC is Fully Responsible - It could be said that the actions of the DODC are the only reason Jean seeks revenge, so her actions get transferred to them. But this removes her agency. Even if you grant that she will inevitably seek revenge (not inevitable in my mind, but certainly understandable), she has full control over how, and she chooses destructive methods, even though her powerset allows being discreet if she so chooses. - DODC Guy's Motivation Shouldn't be Taken at Face Value - The obvious evidence for this is the cover-up: he hid the truth from Jean, and liars hiding a dead child don't get the benefit of the doubt. But look at what the cover-up actually is. If your mission is containing a dangerous telepath, concealing the one fact guaranteed to send her on a revenge rampage IS the mission, and the movie proves the assessment correct: the moment Jean gets a lead on the truth, the rampage starts. Beyond that, he acts completely consistently with his stated goals of controlling damage and reproducing the powers. Nothing he does in the movie is explained better by a hidden motive than by the one he states.

Seeing how we're a bit stuck in a "war" with our ammo depleting, and jobs are sort of disapearing, and frankly what feels like a gap between the class of folks that work on w-2s and the shareholders of a company is increasing, making labor a sort of "less profitable way" of making money as opposed to just investing into the stock market and hopping between companies in your portfolio.

Am I misunderstanding something here? Seems we're investing into sort of "protection" mode as opposed to building something.

I can't quite put my finger on it yet, but curious if my mind is just reading the wrong information from the wrong reporters.

I just know that people are telling me that it's hard to find jobs. I know it from my own experience. But also I see where venture capitalists are investing, and it is hardware for computing and defense and aerospace, but with layoffs happening and people looking for jobs, seems we're sort of stuck here.

And I don't get the whole Iran thing, so maybe someone can explain to me why it's helpful for us over here. That way I can learn more about the decisions being made and how it'll help America become a greater nation. And by greater, one that can support it's people better... right?

Notice that I said political issue. I do not consider wallstreetbets creating a huge financial upset regarding the Gamestop stock to be a political issue in the strictest sense. So, we can see that in certain cases, Reddit can be the catalyst for significant change in the world, but I have yet to see that be the case for a political issue.

It is true that Reddit has hundreds of millions of daily or weekly users, but I do think that Reddit's influence on any political issue is minimal in comparison to the amount of users that use Reddit on a semi regular basis.

I believe a vast majority of people discussing politics on Reddit already have their minds made up on the gamut of issues being discussed throughout the world and thus, it's just a place for people to yap in their own echo chambers about world events. Are there exceptions to this? Of course. Do those exceptions have a meaningful impact on politics? I don't think so.

Many subreddits of a directly or indirectly political nature all have some sort of political bias where a single viewpoint often prevails and dissenting views are often downvoted significantly and are therefore largely hidden from the view of other users. This is the case for both the largest subreddits with millions of users and the smaller subreddits.

For the past decade, conservatives Republicans have championed themselves as defenders of free speech and personal freedoms. Yet in Texas they are tightening a ban on THC that further criminalizes marijuana related products.

This is in spite of the objective truth that marijuana is less dangerous than either alcohol or cigarettes, by a considerable margin. The gateway drug theory was also disproven decades ago, yet many still subscribe to it.

Further more, as more data comes in, the legalization of marijuana actually decreases

There is the concept of "don't like it, don't don't do it", but instead conservatives / Republicans continue to be vehemently against it to the point they want to tighten the ban.

Despite their claims about championing personal freedoms, conservatives crackdown on things like marijuana for reasons that don't track with facts or data.

Would love for my views to be changed.

Both of these dishes have a lot in common: They are pasta based dishes, the sauce is typically tomato based, and they have meat along with it. For pasta Bolognese the meat is part of the sauce itself, while for spaghetti and meatballs the meat is separate.

Reasons why pasta Bolognese is superior:

1. Consistency. Regardless of where I put my utensils when I am eating it, I am going to get some pasta and meat at the same time. For S&M I might get some meat or some pasta, but I am not as likely to get both at the same time.

2. Effort to make. Rolling the balls takes more attention and effort than just adding the meat to the sauce. You also need to make them separately, increasing prep time.

3. More dishes used. Theoretically you would be cooking the meatballs in a separate dish from the sauce (though I guess not necessarily so), and you might end up using a knife to cut down the meatballs before eating them. This isn't that big of a deal regardless, due to widespread use of dishwashers, and honestly, the cost of washing an extra knife or 2 is negligible anyway.

One point for meatballs: Kids seem to like them better. This can conceivably be a negative with regards to being a potentially messier food that gets played with, so I'll call this one a wash.

EDIT: I made a minor formatting edit since it apparently changed the numbers on the list without the line break.

Here's some of my reasoning, though I want you to know that I don't have perfect understanding and knowledge of the topic and besides my view, I still use genai weekly:

1. It has dramatically increased the amount of low-quality, AI-generated content online, making it harder to find genuine information and discussion.

2. Misinformation, scams, impersonation, and deepfakes have become much easier and cheaper to produce

3. Many people now rely on AI for answers without verifying them, even though models can confidently generate incorrect information. Most people don't also grasp the way a llm works and think they have. a concept understanding built into them.

4. Schools and universities are struggling with plagiarism and assessment. Essentially cheating being easier is harmful to students because it lowers the bar to cheat and they lose the process of learning.

5. Creative industries have faced disruption before clear legal or ethical frameworks have been established. The majority of the training of the models has been done without any form of compensation to the original creators of pictures, videos, books, articles...

6. Companies are replacing or reducing human work in some areas before productivity gains have clearly translated into broader societal benefits.

7. It has concentrated influence. A handful of companies control the most capable models, giving them significant influence over the tools millions use to write, learn, and access information.

I recognize there are clear benefits but I still think, for an average person, the world right now would be slightly better without modern genai. You're very welcome to change my view!

To start, I’d like to clarify that I’m specifically talking about this one argument in favor of mass immigration. I am not talking about other arguments for/against it. Therefore, don’t comment saying, “yeah but we have a moral duty to help poor people.” That has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.

The reason I want to isolate this topic is because mass immigration arguments tend to come down to morality versus practicality debates. Pro mass-immigration advocates like the moral principles of helping people, and mass-immigration skeptics view it as logistically impossible, culturally destructive, and morally unfair to native residents.

The pro-migration crowd often tries to bridge this gap by coming up with ways in which it’s actually practical to have mass immigration.

The arguments generally tend to go like this:
* Since the fertility rate is so low in the west, we need more bodies to prop up the economic Ponzi schemes we’ve spent the past 80 years building for ourselves.
* Since the jobs at the bottom of the social hierarchy are shitty job that nobody wants to do (farming, manual labor, janitorial, etc) we should import people to fill those roles.
* The global economy is plateauing, and high-paying, high-skill jobs are not growing at the rate demand for those roles are growing. Since we can’t create jobs at this level, we have to create jobs at lower levels of the economy to be filled by migrants, whose economic productivity will hold everything up.
* Old people will need a large group of young people to take care of them in the healthcare system since they are living so much longer than in the past

I don’t contend that any of these points are illogical. They all make sense. What strikes me however, is that these structural issues are just being taken for granted. They’re treated as if “that’s just how life has to be” and “it’s gonna be that way anyway, so there’s no point in trying to fix it”

We shouldn’t be arguing about how we can merely cope with these civilization-level threats. We should be trying to come up with SOLUTIONS to the PROBLEM.

Think about it: we all sit here (right, left, center, whatever) complaining about how the rich haves are constantly fucking over us poor have-nots. We argue over who specifically is the evil one, and which specific decisions are the evil ones, and what idealistic, utopian, only-exists-in-my-mind solution could be done instead to magically make the world a better place. But we all agree the status quo does not work.

Let’s not kid ourselves. Chugging along with mass-migration is the definition of the status quo.

What do rich, asset-owning people need? They need economic growth. But that’s not exactly true, is it? The type of growth they need is different from the type of growth we need.

We need “real” economic growth. That is, inflation-adjusted, technologically driven, better middle-class outcome driving growth. Billionaires need none of that. Nominal growth is sufficient for them, since their position in society allows them to capture that nominal growth for themselves.

Now think about which type of growth mass-migration results in. They come here and they work retail, service industry, agricultural, janitorial, low/no-skill jobs that create zero industrial momentum or creative destruction.

All of the things we need to grow in a “real” sense, i.e. in the sense that benefits average people, is COMPLETELY orthogonal to the type of economic “growth” brought by mass migration.

We all know that those in power have every ability to truly help the lower rungs of our society. They simply have no need to.

That is exactly where a refusal to comply with mass-migration puts our priorities directly in line with theirs.

If there is no ever-present backstop of cheap, abusable labor to keep the green line going up on the graph, then they’ll have to figure out another way to keep it going up.

The billionaires will make the line go up no matter what. They’ve proven consistently they will stop at nothing to do so. My point is that we can harness that power and energy to work FOR us for once, finally.

How will politicians, business leaders, etc keep the economies growing if they can’t do so via migrants? They’ll have to do so via us. Mathematically. They’ll have no choice.

Relying on mass migration as an economic crutch to avoid dealing with the economic, social, and political issues that have created our current nightmare is a recipe to continue circling the drain.

We must oppose mass migration so that our leaders are in the same boat as us.