Agreed on economic issues, but I disagree that liberalism is conservative on social issues the way that Australia’s Liberals are. I think classical liberalism in an American context would be most closely associated with American libertarianism. Liberalism has a huge hard-on for laissez faire economics, but it also should ostensibly emphasize individual freedom more than anything else when it comes to social issues. Both Republicans in the US and Liberals in Australia might speak platitudes about their desire for free speech, but if you challenge that even a little you’ll quickly find that they’re just hard right wing conservatives hiding behind the moderated mask of liberalism.

The problem with SOCIETY is that they NEVER give the yellow guy a CHANCE to make his CASE. The LIBERAL MEDIA owns our INFORMATION.

Edit: Wasn’t sure if it needed to be said, but /s

NaNaNaNaNaNaN…

Hey Hey Hey Goodbye

Smartphones (and the Internet more generally) have led to a major decline in reading books among the American public. I think this plays such a huge role in the absolutely batshit crazy cultural shift we’ve seen.

I think populism is more accurately defined in its rhetoric against a “group of elites” that must be fought. Sometimes that’s based in reality, sometimes it isn’t. Trump’s brand of populism, for example, pushes this idea of a group of out of touch pedophilic liberal elites who want open borders and who want to redefine traditional gender and sexual roles. The Bernie Sanders style leftist populism defines the group of elites as the billionaire business class controlling the economic system of America such that they avoid taxes and write laws through legalized bribery. I would argue that Bernie’s populism is based in reality and Trump’s is based in exaggeration and fear mongering. But that’s my take as someone who leans left.

In both cases the populism itself is appealing to the masses, yes, but it’s specifically appealing to them by drawing clear lines around an enemy that needs to be fought. Trump’s exaggeration of this enemy is where populism becomes dangerous. As someone who has recently been studying the French revolution, I can also point to that as a great example of populism that started with an accurately defined enemy (monarchy) and over time morphed into something that was really just vague calls of “treason” aimed at anyone and everyone who could be made the subject of ill defined conspiracy theories. Populism can be a powerful force for good when the enemy is real and the ideology is clear, but it can be just as powerful a force for evil when the lines are obscured or invented whole cloth.

So the question in this case is who the enemy is. Who would a populist replacement for Trudeau be fighting and how would they define their ideology?

Step 1) Find a list of every US citizen

Step 2) Copy

Step 3) Paste

I’d love it if we could vote better people into government, but the billionaires have been putting their fingers on the scale. If anyone is responsible for the resentment aimed at them, it’s them.

Most of the world actually has legal marriage between first cousins. In many places it’s not even taboo. And on top of that, the chances of genetic issues with it are actually pretty small. It’s multiple generations of first cousins having kids where it becomes a problem.

It’s wild how close the Amazon river basin comes to the west coast of the continent without draining into the ocean on that side.

Say tray deefee seal.

2023 has been the hardest and worst year of my life, followed by 2022. 2020 and 2021 were some of my best years ever. It’s hard to handle that whiplash and I really regret not seeing the hard times ahead back then with the inevitable economic crisis on the horizon.

I always thought it was funny while studying for my Cisco certification that their operating system was also called IOS. I had no idea there was actual drama behind it!

Well, it’s starting to look that way. They’ve reached the point of trying to overthrow our democratic institutions. The only thing left for them to do is openly advocate for the execution of political rivals.

The only way that could conceivably work out is if everyone collectively protested their student loans together since it’s such a massive problem for so many people. Even then, the government would probably buckle down and try to destroy half the country’s financial viability before they caved and admitted this toxic industry preyed on kids that didn’t know what that debt meant when they signed up for it.

Everything is all right with this Supreme Court.

The most effective ads I’ve seen in my lifetime have been podcast ads. I don’t remember shit I see in mobile apps or on most corners of the internet. I could personally sell Blue Apron or Harry’s Razors for all I’ve heard about them on podcasts though. The smartest companies allow the podcasters to joke around in their ads too. My Brother, My Brother, and Me will say some borderline offensive but hilarious stuff in their ads and I’ll be damned if it doesn’t keep me listening to their ads and hearing about the products being advertised.

Lmao, unfortunately not. Thanks for catching the typo.

isn’t**

Oh it definitely happens. I’m a young millennial and I have a friend my age who deals with mental issues because he ate lead paint leftover in their old house as a child. Lead was so prevalent at one point that getting rid of it all isn’t as simple as flipping a switch.

Edit: [wasn’t -> isn’t] There does not in fact exist a switch that we can now flip to remove lead. Thanks @[email protected].

I think it’s easier to understand net neutrality as something ISP’s can’t do rather than something they must do, since we’ve never seen them really act on it before. It just means they can’t speed up or slow down your internet based on what websites you’re visiting. Under net neutrality, there can never be a deal with Google to give people faster speeds using Google searches than Bing or DuckDuckGo searches.

How a person reacts to being asked about the version of these things most close to them is telling. If they get defensive and deny the event happened, I would hesitate to trust their opinion on other things. Clearly that person bases their opinions on what they want to be true rather than reality. That’s the kind of person whose ideology would likely lead to another event to be ashamed of. If, on the other hand, they admit it was a horrible thing and agree that people should be educated on it and that steps should be taken to prevent it from ever happening again, then I’m more likely to take their opinion seriously and believe that they can be part of the conversations we need to happen to create a better world.