I was alluding to ideological purity tests, but yeah, I don’t think I communicated my point well enough. If you're referring to my trans-whatnot being tied/fettered to economic policies, or at least having the perception of being attached to economic policies.

Both sides are bad" is true, though. The Democrats and Republicans are infiltrated by Zionists. The reality that both sides are bad could also motivate people to vote for a third party.

Australia isn't doing so well right now either. We're all screwed. I think Australia as a whole is about on par with Florida alone at the moment. Something has been holding Australia back from developing properly, even more so than the problems the United States has been facing.

If Republicans vote for a slightly less damaged economy but end up with Zionist infiltration, it makes their side look bad. Similarly, if Democrats push through free healthcare & gay rights but also incur Zionist infiltration, it makes their side look bad as well. In this kind of system, winning is like losing if you cannot remove the root problem.

In your view, can someone support trans rights & not be a communist/socialist/democratic-socialist/etc.? Is it okay for me to oppose nationalized currency & support freedom of association? How do you define transphobia? I want to support trans people, but I don't want to have to pick up the baggage that comes with leftism, like bad economic ideas or taking away personal freedoms.

They shouldn’t have the power they wield, and if killing them is the best way to take it from them, then I’m all for it.

Your position is the same as being pro-murder, but articulated in a more passive voice. In my opinion, you should be allowed to hold this view & should not be censored for expressing it. I think the best way for socialists to gain power over nationalists or liberals is to strike when these groups are occupied with other conflicts, much like the Chinese Communists did with the Chinese Nationalists when they were occupied & weakened by the Japanese, or to render the nationalist system unworkable. Socialist/communist/etc takeover could be achieved by promoting policies that suppress native population growth while importing foreigners, or by accumulating unsustainable compounding debt through welfare programs & war, all while the native population fails to grow & develop its economy enough to compensate (the democratic socialists' policies, such as rent freezes & numerous regulations for providing healthcare, can kill potential growth via restricting supply). I believe the new democratic socialists in the USA are effectively taking power, largely because no one likes their main rival, the nationalists, who are, by all accounts, thoroughly infiltrated by Zionists.

Now, the question is whether the window of opportunity for the communists or socialists exists through the democratic socialism movement. All you would need to do would be to water down the phrasing (like you did with your murder opinion) & express the truth that the nationalists have been infiltrated by the Zionists.

You're going to end up with AI that works for some people & not for others under these sorts of policies. I don't really think this is in the spirit of democratic socialism.

I disagree with the genocide stuff (i.e., I don't support Israel), but from your perspective, I support bigotry because I advocate for freedom of association. Which would allow for situations like Japanese store owners not wanting to serve foreigners or American coffee shops choosing not to serve Zionists. That is, you would be free to discriminate even if the reasons were stupid.

I was like this before I tried regular Arch. I probably would’ve settled on NixOS if I had tried that first. I feel like Linux Mint could be the end of the line because it just works on a lot of old machines & does so quickly.

I would agree that there is no real difference between state & non-state violence, aside from public perception, the additional liability protections that states grant themselves, & stuff like that. However, I probably have the "wrong" opinion about murder & shooting billionaires on Lemmy. I happen to oppose killing billionaires simply because they are billionaires. I don't support murder, & I don't think being a billionaire is a reason for someone to be murdered. Maybe if I were trying to impress a socialist girl, I could pretend to have that opinion. But I'm a terrible actor & an even worse liar, so that's not really my thing.

P.S. I could also just be wrong, & maybe your opinion (about the murder stuff) is actually the correct one. I don't know. If that's the case, then there's definitely something I'm missing.

What sort of opinions would get someone onto the cool people list?

I tell people to try to take the GED & graduate high school early (since it's a waste of time & full of propaganda), then save money on their first year of college by taking CLEP exams using vouchers provided through completing Modern States courses.

I shouldn't have only mentioned unions. A better way to put it is that I take issue with education when it isn't oriented to serve the consumer (i.e., the parent or student). I would oppose eliminating unions, as I actually like many of them; I just don't like closed-shop unions. I also like worker cooperatives, but I don't support mandating them.

I figured we could work together to refute it, with each of us presenting a counterargument. I don't know, I just thought it was a cool idea.

The conservative goal would be for schooling to be as affordable as possible, without artificial barriers restricting supply for the benefit of unions rather than students. I can't really speak for all conservatives because, first, I'm not one, & second, there's a huge diversity of thought within conservatism. For example, some conservatives support Israel's genocidal actions in Gaza, while others oppose them, so there are obvious huge differences of opinion within the tent that is 'conservatism'.

I would agree with you in opposing the wars & Israel’s actions. I also think that is the main concern. Social democratic policies, especially those backed by the world's reserve currency (2030s social security is projected to have issues), would likely take a while to cause damage similar to what a war or the risk of nuclear proliferation could. (Social democratic policies mostly cause a removal of future growth, i.e., a higher future poverty rate.) I think Israel's genocidal actions are horrible, & America's evident limitations are exposed when it engages in wars with huge geographical disadvantages & not enough technological advantages. If America had to declare war on someone (to prop up its wartime economy), it should be Israel. Fighting giant empires like Iran, China, & Russia is strategically stupid; at the very least, pit them against each other rather than trying to fight them all at once. However, obviously I oppose warmongering, but it's also frustrating how bad they're at warmongering too.

I don't really care about those statistics. I was just mentioning a notable mislabeling case. I don't like racism, & I think we should move beyond the tribal battle stuff. If you want to call me racist, you can call me racist for supporting "freedom of association," which would allow people to discriminate for arbitrary & goofy reasons. I support the coffee shop that didn't want to serve the Israeli guy & the Christian baker who didn't want to make a gay wedding cake.

While it is true that certain races currently commit more crimes per capita, these are trends subject to change; I doubt they are inherent to ethnicity. This is likely caused by cultural factors, learned helplessness, Marxism (which teaches an 'us versus them' mentality), ingrained persecution complexes, & other whatnot.

I also disagree with those who believe women shouldn't vote simply because they currently lean toward social democrats. While I agree that social democracy leads to poverty and stagnation, I don't think it's inevitable that women will always vote for social democratic candidates.

I guess, literally, he probably means that if Democrats do not allow ICE to deport criminals, potential murderers, & rapists, then there would be bloodshed by those criminals who could have been deported if ICE had not been thwarted. In other words, the people who might harm others & could have been removed from the country would still remain here committing crimes.

However, in light of recent events involving ICE shooting at what appears to me to have been an anxious, bad female driver, the statement sounds much worse/more-ominous/baleful.

P.S. I do not like masked government officials, even if there are people associated with groups like ANTIFA who are willing to murder over this issue. However, I would rather be able to hold government officials accountable. If an ANTIFA member murders someone, they should go to jail, just like an ICE agent should go to jail if they murder someone.

We both (probably) view ourselves as good people (or at least as people who strive for that). However, I believe your policies cause people to suffer from a lack of food, shelter, & healthcare (e.g., whether you are a Republican, Democratic Socialist, MAGA, Democrat, etc.). Your politics drive up the cost of supplying these necessities by creating barriers to entry for those who provide them, dictating how and to what extent they can operate. While I think many of the founders were excellent architects of a governance system, I do not view them as saints or possess any sort of hagiomania toward them.

The main point is that flawed data collection is skewing the results. I don't remember where to find the one with the mugshots to be honest.

"In response to a directive by the U.S. Government’s Office of Management and Budget, the national UCR Program has expanded its data collection categories for race from four (White, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Asian or Other Pacific Islander) to five (White, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander). Also, the ethnicity categories have changed from “Hispanic” to “Hispanic or Latino Origin” and from “Non-Hispanic” to “Not of Hispanic or Latino Origin.” These changes will be reflected in data presented for 2013."

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2011/resources/about-the-uniform-crime-reporting-ucr-program