I'm watching a response video to one of my videos, and the guy said that "this is one of the most well studied issues in economics" and I shit you not, brought up an article from THE MISES INSTITUTE
Now he's arguing that free homes won't solve homelessness, because the real problem is cuts to social programs (which he supports).
NOW HE IS ARGUING THAT WATER SHOULD BE PRIVATIZED BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT COULD CASE A SLIPPERY SLOPE WHERE IT BECOMES ILLEGAL TO SELL SODA FOR PROFIT
Now he's arguing that seizing homes from mutli-national corporations who explicitly let them sit vacant to drive up real estate prices is the moral equivalent of robbing a produce vendor on the side of the road.
I need to take a break, my mind is in recovery mode from all these high level ideas.
He keeps saying "I think I know where he's going with this-" and preemptively debunking the arguments he thinks I'm going to make, but then saying "Let's see if he says that" and I don't, and he either doesn't respond to my actual argument or just says "That wouldn't work"
LOL
"The landlord takes a risk, a socialist like you could get in power and seize their land"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The gutless moralizing about a need to "condemn Hamas" explicitly privileges Israeli lives above Palestinian lives.
A demand to acknowledge that violence against Israelis is more heinous than the far bloodier context that violence exists within.
What the fuck you think is gonna happen exactly? There's gonna be some groundswell of western support for fucking Hamas? Do you really think that's a big concern?
Demanding that people add their voice to condemning this attack while the vultures are circling and openly talking about leveling Gaza in retaliation just helps them build the case to do it.
Incredibly, somehow the irony was lost on many peopl,e who have decided that this was a coded message attacking one of their favs.
My point has been proven, following the EXACT arc I laid out to a tee.
I truly thought the example of "baby pisser" would be so self-evidently absurd that nobody could mistake it for some sort of accusation against a real person, but I guess I underestimated people's ability to read in bad faith!
It's very fun, cool, and normal that a number of people have specifically called me out for trans-misogyny about a fictitious person I made up, who was not inspired by a trans person in any way.
The twitter experience:
You see that "pissonbabies" is trending. You tweet that you think it is bad. You log in later to see dozens of people dragging you, who think you're specifically beefing with some content-doer who has decided to make baby pissing their whole personality.
Months down the line, the baby pisser's life is in tatters. all of their misfortune is laid at your feet by an ardent fanbase who insist that they strenuously disagree with the baby pissing, but otherwise think they made a lot of good points.
The baby pisser says "Actually I have social anxiety, and that's the only reason I pissed on those babies", and now their fanbase starts to believe that you chose to bully them for having social anxiety.
Fuck it, here are some things I've learned from thousands of exactly one e-mails from hopeful eyeball supplicants:
Everyone is afraid to ask for something. Everyone is afraid to say "I would like this please."
When someone offers you something, you don't have to apologize for asking for it.
You don't need to put yourself down or put down your work. I know you feel insecure, so do I, but you should always be your work's biggest advocate.
If you don't think it's any good, why do you expect me to?
I don't know if this is a particularly new observation, but modern day fascists critique "post modernism" using precisely the same language and logic as classic fascists used to describe modernism.
In both cases they are presented as degenerative, dangerous and destabilizing ideologies meant to corrupt and weaken the nation by destroying traditional values.
"Post-modernists" preach moral relativism, which (something something), now everybody's gay.
The idea that truth is relative is anathema to the fascist project. In the mind of a fascist, truth is absolute, self-justifying and unquestionable. It is immune from reconsideration, or the gathering of new data.
Ex. "There are only two genders, that's basic biology!"
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but it really needs to be said that allowing children to make decisions free from social pressure and coercion, rather than forcing them to conform to what makes you comfortable ...is the literal opposite of grooming.
If you wanted to know what grooming looked like, a good example would be state officials saying "Hey kid, if you don't assume the prescribed gender role we have created for you, we will put your parents in jail and torture you."
A good litmus test for authoritarian creeps is: if an idea is likely to upset, frighten or confuse a child, should that knowledge be:
A) Explained to them in a way they can understand, and minimize risks
B) Withheld, lest their minds become unsullied by impure thought