BraveSirZaphod @ BraveSirZaphod @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

1,142

Joined

2 yr. ago

That's the infuriating thing about this whole mess that feels impossible to solve.

Rhetoric like this directly radicalizes Israelis and pushes them towards violent escalation, which then radicalizes Palestinians into violence as well, further inspiring more Israeli violence, and on and on the cycle goes.

And then anyone who advocates for any amount of moderation will simultaneously get called a terrorist sympathizer for not wanting to nuke Gaza and a genocide accomplice for not wanting to forcibly remove or kill every Israeli.

In this particular context, "I believe Joe Biden should be the elected to another term" in apparently objectionable.

Similarly, "I believe that the murder of 1000 Israeli citizens on October 7th was bad, and also that the Netanyahu government is atrocious and its military response has been grossly disproportionate and involved multiple war crimes" is enough to get you ejected from plenty of leftist spaces that insist that the October 7th attacks must be celebrated as an act of radical resistance.

It is also a Club founded to keep the LGBTQ community free of anointed gatekeepers and machine politics

This is comically hypocritical given that you'll be gatekept out of any group like this the moment you express any opinion they disagree with, speaking as a gay guy myself.

I certainly hope you're not an American and have never been to the United States, because I've got some unfortunate news about who that land properly belongs to.

I'd love to see your thoughts if you'd been in the area to experience Hamas' "peace" on October 7th.

Austerity does not tend to foster economic growth

I mean, that's precisely the point. Growth isn't really the priority right now, because that also tends to increase inflation. The loose aim of Milei's plan is to return things to an actually accurate economic baseline by cutting extremely distortionary government spending and subsidies and allowing the peso to fall to its true actual value, and only then pivoting to focus on real and sustainable growth that's actually backed by legitimate increases in efficiency and production rather than government money printers and IMF loans that only make the problem worse.

I won't pretend that this approach doesn't have some harsh consequences on people that will be disproportionately born by the poor or that there aren't any other options, but there is a legitimate economic basis for the idea. Whether it's worth it or is fair and just is another question.

Conservatives are by no means the only problem here.

Ultimately, people become homeless because they cannot afford a home. Shockingly, housing prices thus have an extremely strong effect on homelessness rates. The great state of West Virginia, despite all its many many flaws and challenges between extreme poverty, addiction, lack of jobs, and everything else, does not have a significant homelessness problem. Why? Because housing in West Virginia is dirt cheap such that even people who are struggling can still maintain housing.

This is a policy choice, not some natural and inevitable state of affairs. While subsidies and other programs can move the needle a little bit, by far the greatest factor affecting housing costs is raw supply v. demand, and the fact of the matter is that voters all over the United States, even in the most progressive zip codes in the country, have decided that they would rather restrict the supply of new housing in order to increase the value of their own property investments instead of allowing new housing to be built, even if the consequence is huge swaths of people can no longer afford housing at all. To make themselves feel a little bit better, progressives might throw some money at broken homeless shelter systems and pretend that that band-aid actually fixes the problem.

West Virginia certainly didn't avoid a homelessness problem by aggressively subsidizing affordable housing, making huge investments in public housing projects, implementing huge restrictions on landlords, or building a massive shelter and support system. They simply maintained an adequate supply of housing relative to the amount of people that want to live there. Until blue cities and states wake up to this fundamental fact, nothing is going to meaningfully change. You cannot simultaneously have your housing be an ever-increasing lucrative investment asset and have housing be affordable, no matter how many progressive sign posts you put in the lawn. It's incredible how quickly people like California progressives who claim to care so much about the poor and the downtrodden show their true colors the moment you suggest building an apartment building in their single-family house suburbia that might actually be affordable by those same people.

I can imagine a non-zero amount of people would consent to a deep-fake porn video of themselves having sex with some generic hot woman, just as one example.

Jumping to "All Israelis deserve to die" is not helping you the way you think it is, but by all means, keep digging if you want.

So, yes, it's "I think more civilian deaths would be good".

I think I'll just let that speak for itself. Cheers.

Are you suggesting that hundreds of dead Israeli citizens would be a better state of affairs?

If your position is that we should not support military action that blatantly violates standard rules of engagement, that would apply to the Iranian military just as much as it applies to the IDF. There's no contradiction in criticizing IDF action in Gaza for not trying to minimize civilian casualties while also working to minimize civilian casualties in Israel as a result of Iranian action.

That's proven to be both unpopular and often having unintended side effects.

I did my first cruise this year, and honestly had an absolute blast. However, the extremely important factor here is that it was a gay cruise (from the company Atlantis), and so it was absolutely nothing like the standard experience. For one week in the Caribbean, it was basically just a giant non-stop party. No kids, no entitled retirees, just you and 5000 other gay men trying to enjoy as much debauchery as can be fit into a week.

There were some port stops as well which were nice, but the main draw was very much the parties that would go on all night and through the morning. The music and production was incredible, and most of the other entertainment options were also swapped out for more gay-oriented options, so instead of bingo or whatever it is the boomers do, it was drag queens doing Britney Spears singalongs and things like that. And because everyone is gay, there's already a shared common experience and identity so people tend to be very friendly and welcoming.

Also, if you're single or otherwise available, the amount of sex you could have is genuinely ridiculous, though I was there with my boyfriend so we mostly just enjoyed the parties and made some great new friends. I had such a fun time, contrary to my expectations, that we've actually signed up to do another one in Europe later this summer, and that winter Caribbean cruise will probably become an annual thing for us.

PPP loans were meant to be forgiven so long as they were spent properly on payroll. So long as those politicians followed the rules of the loans, any hypocrisy on the side scummy, but not criminal.

The biggest issue involves the logistics on the ground, and in places with extremely high food insecurity, there tends to be little to no legitimate government, and so getting anything done involves dealing with local gangs and warlords. It doesn't matter how much money you have if every shipment you send will just be stolen at gunpoint and sold to fund the local thug's next golden toilet. This is not a problem that can really be solved by throwing money at it.

You're correct, but the fundamental blame for that does lie with the voters, at the end of the day. No amount of structural protections can protect democracy from voters that do not care about it. At that point, they're just ink on a page.

To actually give an answer, it's because the Constitution very deliberately does not allow criminal convictions to disqualify someone. This was done because it was, and in plenty of places still is, common practice for a government to simply make up charges and arrest any opposition, thus disqualifying them from running.

You always have to look at this kind of stuff from the other side. Would you really want a Trump to be able to disqualify an opposing candidate for running a red light once twenty years ago?

This guy's inability to fathom that there exists music outside of Rock is bordering on hilarious. Not to even mention the entire world of music before Rock, which is especially hilarious given him citing musical history. Does he think Nat King Cole or Ella Fitzgerald wrote their own music?

Whelp, I had a large response typed up that I lost by accidentally swiping back, so I'll just say that if you're going to call Beyonce a terrible person, I probably wouldn't cite rock stars as paragons of morality, or shall we ask Cynthia Lennon how nice John was to her? I hardly need to bring up Michael Jackson. Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether they wrote their songs or not, which is the actual topic, so I'm not sure why you bring that up at all.

Genres have obviously shifted, but if you compare pop musicians of today to the pop musicians of the 70s and 80s, yes, there is absolutely more songwriting today by the artists. Rock is a very different genre with its own traditions and tends to be based around groups rather than solo artists, so it's not a very apt comparison. Not to mention, it's not like rock artists back then weren't shitting on disco groups for this exact reason back in the day. The Village People weren't exactly prolific songwriters.

It almost feels like your real issue is that rock is dead, and sure, that's unfortunate. But luckily for you, rumor has it that Beyonce's next album will be based in rock.

It’s not like back in the day when an artist got big by their own merit

Sorry, when, exactly, are you talking about? Frank Sinatra didn't write any of his major songs. Elvis Presley literally didn't write anything. Madonna didn't write most of her biggest early hits, though she did get much more involved in writing after the 80s. Plenty of Rhianna's big songs weren't written by her. Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, and Celine Dion aren't songwriters. Meat Loaf didn't write a single song on 'Bat Out of Hell'.

So, what is this time period where every artist got by solely by their own unassisted talent? Because I could also point to Taylor Swift today, who's been heavily involved in the writing of every song she's ever made. Lady Gaga's writing influence is all over everything she's done. Zoomer superstar Olivia Rodrigo wrote every song on her latest album.

Just looking at some top albums from 2023:

• SOS by SZA - She's credited on every song.
• Midnights by Taylor Swift - She wrote everything.
• One Thing at a Time by Morgan Wallen - Writing credits on roughly half the tracks
• Did You Know There's a Tunnel under Ocean Blvd by Lana del Rey - Primary credits on all tracks

The funny thing is that, compared to most of pop music history, it's actually far more common for artists to be involved in songwriting that it was in the past. Up until relatively recently, singers were mostly seen as just that - singers - and there was no real expectation for them to be writers as well, since the songs would be supplied by the large team assembled by the label.

So again, I ask, what was this golden age where all artists wrote everything they performed, and when did it end?