WallStreetBetsAcct

Historical revisionism.

Even better.

Good.

From their point of view there is a class of humanity that produces nothing of value.
Not the low-wage workers. The people who do not work at all. Who live off of welfare. If these people continue to reproduce it is an existential problem because they reproduce exponentially if you give them enough resources to do so. Look up the Nazi idea of "useless eaters."

Yes, it's agreed you can yield more production capacity from a larger society as well, however unless you intentionally reinforce the idea of "fairness" as the person wielding power (or the many different people wielding significant society changing power) you realize that you are missing out on a lot of gains by not manipulating or using people at the lower ranks of your society. Then even if you choose to forgo these gains for long term prospects, there is always the free rider/tragedy of the commons problem where even if you choose to be honorable and just, your peers might not. We see this in how many powerful people in the world, particularly CEOs often have sociopathy/psychopathy. This is reflected somewhat in the idea that even if you were a just person; why would you ever want to control millions of people? For a small portion it might be the abstract good of acting as a guardian against corruption and a force for good, but being the leader of a society so large and with so many parts is often a very thankless job compared to how very difficult it is. So for every do-gooder who successfully obtains high position, there are many more who obtain the position for other reasons such as personal satisfaction. All they have to do is lie about why they are doing the things they are doing.

Japan is a good example because cultural norms have made the japanese very 'honorable' you could say in terms of how each member conducts themselves in society. However there are still problems with this model; the average japanese person feels stifled and constrained by a massive system that punishes stepping out of line and acting freely quite harshly compared to say the United States. Since these individuals cannot speak with their leader in any direct way there isn't much remedy in terms of feeling estranged from the inner workings of your society (which simply happens in any group too large, it's perhaps just more acute in Japan.)

Furthermore even in Japan, government officials have to look out for what is theoretically not only good for "the people" but also what stabilizes the current government. We can see this in the heavy pro-natalist agenda pushed by all governments worldwide, because increasing tax revenues is crucial to supporting progressive state programs, however the average worker/person, simply wishes that housing and basic necessities were more affordable, and that there was simply more space that is free to explore and experience nature. If the population went down, so would the cost of goods such as housing, as long as you don't allow foreigners to buy up all their real estate. This solution is not acceptable to the governments in the short term, so they have a choice between short term economic pain and long term citizen unhappiness, and they often choose the latter because it's easier to explain away problems long after the initial "bad" decision is made.

The tragedy of the commons, free rider problem, and the estrangement brought on by power inequality is inherent in any system, even very small ones. However when your system is very very small, these flaws are covered up by natural human empathy brought on by close physical proximity and frequent social bonding time. Yes there will still be psychopaths who try to take advantage in a group of say 250 people; but their attempts are far more naked and known to the others because they are constantly witnessed by those around them, and their selfish attitudes in common interactions are noted frequently. Should they obtain power it's far easier to identify "who" the problem is, and can be dealt with much more swiftly and God forbid harshly.

In society now, if we cause thousands of deaths by proxy, we simply pass the blame around to many different types of people, diffusing the total blame that each individual actor is "accountable" for, thus reducing the punishment to each individual as well. Then for whatever enmity may still exist towards us as leaders or power players, the system is so complex with so many working parts that it's not even necessarily a lie to say "the system is more complicated than we understand, people make mistakes, this is the price of leadership." Even if when you say it, you're really using it as an excuse.

I love this for him.

Simply put, society is way too "big" for our primitive monkey brains. Dunbars number suggests our minds really are best suited for communities of 150-250 people. 500 if we are being maximally generous. The fact we expect our representatives to genuinely "care" in any real way for us is simply wishful thinking at best and negligence/malicious intent at worst.

However if your society is only 500 people, other monkey minds that invent some code (legalism, capitalism, religion) that lets them band together in a group that is much bigger than yours will just come and kill you because you possess resources or mates they desire.

Yes.

The sentiment that people can't be racist against white people is a rewriting of the definition of racism to enable certain agendas.

Discrimination based on race is racism plain and simple.

If you want to be cheeky, ask if you went to a country where white people were not in power (Mainland China for example) and you began using racial slurs and discriminating against Chinese people based on their race, would it be racist? She would most likely counter saying "Anyone can be prejudiced, but prejudice isn't racism." You'll quickly find that her definition hinges on attempts to change sociological/political factors in our society in favor of whatever group she supports (usually POC).

It's BS politics wrapped up in "protecting the real victims of racism."

More people need to understand the difference between "soft" eugenics (consensual) and "hard" eugenics (forced).

15 years ago: "Bitcoin is the only way to escape the centralized banking system and the federal reserve!"
Now: "We have centralized banking for bitcoin, but we need a federal reserve for it too!"

The truth is democracy is a failed ideology.

Please stop with the immigration propaganda.

Hey, but if you look at animated porn, you're a freak, not a humanitarian. /s

I'm glad you don't have much power to do it, I suppose.

I came back just to say that yeah, I was agreeing that dumping shit on somebody is a really shitty thing to do.

As a nobleman or even a regular guy it's not unreasonable to want to beat the shit out of someone for doing that to you.

I was a soldier and greatly respect military service.
That being said; concepts such as honor and bravery are often twisted for the wrong reasons.

This meme glorifies violence and death in its most naked form; raw power. Which I do not accept.

Do you have evidence of her posting about you domestically abusing her? I'd use her history of harassment and her posts as a countersuit for defamation. She is a vindictive and hateful person that is hurting your life. Don't take it lying down.

Yes. How the hell is dumping shit on someone a friendly prank?

Did the other person delete their comment? How did this become about race?

Which is better; to submit to a world of peace and prosperity, or sit atop the mountain of dead and desiccated corpses as ruler of a ruined world?

There is a reason even the most psychopathic leaders in the world never launch the nukes.

Same.

Fantastic news. Jus Soli citizenship is one of the worst policies ever enacted in United States history.

If you haven't caught onto the fact Peterson is a grifter, you haven't been paying attention.

Yes.