When upper-class leftists tell you that you should give leniency to criminal behavior & accept vagrancy, the people who will suffer the most are the poor & working class (especially minorities).
This Safeway closure was a destined outcome of their luxury beliefs.
*Thread*
Throughout the U.S. in major cities, we've watched as retailers have gone through extraordinary measures to deter theft from happening. It used to be that there was a black market for specific items like cigarettes, requiring an associate to retain them from a secure location.
However, now what's happened is that basic items like soaps and toothpaste are being locked away as a final step to slow down the rampant theft. This activity comes at a cost of revenue and at some point, retailers would rather relocate instead of continuing to operate at a loss.
Grocery stores in particular are notorious for operating on tight margins as it is and for each item that a shoplifter deems as theirs, they are adding to the demoralization of the retailer and weakening their resilience to remain as an integral part of a community.
So, how did we get here? I believe a large part of it is because of the ideological framework perpetrated mostly by upper-class leftist ideologues, whether they be activists, politicians, district attorneys, or academics: they all play a part.
Before we go on, if you'd prefer to read this in an article format or would like to share this thread, you can do so here (please subscribe while you're at it!):
By understanding that a leftist's entire belief system revolves around there being a constant oppressor versus oppressed narrative, leaving out any form of nuance because it's ultimately religious dogma, you'll understand why they are behaving counter to common sense.
The "system" oppresses anyone that comes in contact with it. Whether it be the government or capitalism itself, they believe their main objective is to oppress. So, stealing from a business, a symbol of Capitalism translates into behaving like Robin Hood: thieves are now heroes.
The criminal is the counter-reaction to an oppressive society, and taking from anything capitalistic is much like reparations to them. However, the people who believe this the most aren't the ones who usually suffer the consequences of these luxury beliefs.
When criminals leave jail, they don't take refuge in gated communities; they live amongst people who are barely getting by. When leftist district attorneys give criminals a “slap on the wrist” for their behavior, they're signaling that they accept it when they terrorize the poor.
However, criminal activity only becomes a problem when it trickles over to the nice part of town because bad things aren't supposed to happen there. Homeless vagrants are supposed to piss on your street, not theirs. Crime only becomes a problem when it affects the cul-de-sacs.
Crime typically becomes a topic of concern when it bleeds over into the places where people least expect it to occur. This is the only time when elitists in government will suddenly reconvene to discuss a crime problem: it was always a problem, it just didn't affect them.
Defunding the police only makes sense when you aren't inundated with criminal activity and you don't live next to community terrorists. No one in their right mind can look at the guy who's stealing from them and interpret them as victims of an oppressive system: they're thieves.
Luxury beliefs always result in uncomfortable outcomes and this closure of a San Francisco Safeway that serves a predominantly Black and Asian community will have the fingerprints of dogmatic leftists on the doors when they close for the last time.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The reason that leftist "academics", college graduates, and credentialists were upset about Claudine Gay's resignation wasn't really because of racism or sexism.
It was because the public, aka peasants, pressured a member of the upper class to sacrifice her position.
*Thread*
George Carlin famously stated "It's one big club and you ain't in it" and this is incredibly true when it comes to how elitists in academia and those who've invested in academia view their social standing against the "uneducated" public.
The greatest sleight of hand performed today is by the upper class when they quickly switch out their economic privilege to swap in oppression narratives to galvanize the poor and working class to weep for them: We're not supposed to see what is obviously a life advantage.
The first public backlash I received was when I went on a podcast & talked about how I was engaged to be married years ago: that's when I felt the brunt of miserable people.
It's only gotten worse with recent focus on Simone Biles & Pierce Brosnan's marriage.
*Thread/Article*
When you become a public figure, especially in the cultural and political area, being criticized comes with the territory but the reaction to my appearance on @SuzanneVenker's podcast was dumbfounding. A sizable portion of the comments weren't upset with my words but actions.
Out of all the potentially controversial things I said, they were upset over my engagement with my now-wife. Strangers were upset about my personal decision that didn't affect them whatsoever and made it known how they disapproved of my choice to marry the woman I love.
Yesterday, I created this poll as a social experiment. Many thought I was trying to degrade or trap Trump supporters but that wasn't the case.
However, it was a thought experiment to answer this: Does the release of an Epstein list matter to you and does it prove involvement?
The reason I was targeting Trump supporters was that since the death of Epstein, I've heard mostly Trump supporters use the lack of a release of a client list or flight log as proof of a cover-up and label this as a smoking gun to identify the pedophiles in the elite class.
The results of this poll actually don't matter to me and honestly, don't prove anything to me. It's a flawed way to ask a question about voting because everyone votes for different reasons. There are caveats to the decisions people make, so the results really prove nothing.
I've noticed when the topic of parental rights comes up, many leftists automatically presume malice, reference abuse, or have a generally negative outlook about the average parent.
Why? I believe it's because it's a projection of their personal experience growing up.
*Thread*
It's natural yet ill-advised to assume everyone's experience is similar to yours but it's difficult to see the world in other people's eyes. There is true value in understanding someone else's perspective so you don't end up misinterpreting other people's intentions.
I'm not a leftist but I can understand the perspective of some of these well-intentioned leftists who believe they need to protect children from their parents who will mistreat them if they come out as gay or don't follow the norms of society: it's because they weren't protected.
About a year ago, I started watching @libsoftiktok videos while on mute as I found that their body language and mannerisms would tell a deeper story than the rhetoric they were espousing and I was troubled by my revelations of these individuals.
*Thread / Article*
If you're not familiar with the account Libs of TikTok, they gather clips of leftist propaganda videos made by individuals on TikTok. Some of the videos are benign, but often they are short-length diatribes about something objectively ridiculous.
Like most people, when you hear some pink-haired girl talking about how they identify as a dragon, it makes you roll your eyes, but I wanted to not focus on their words and instead look at what their body is telling me when saying something as ridiculous as that.
On February 2nd, I received an email from a woman named Joan in response to my NY Post article. Her condescending diatribe didn't bother me but what stuck out to me was her demand for me to "go into black communities and tell black youth that crime leads to jail time."
*Thread*
This statement was especially puzzling because my article had nothing to do with violence. The basis of the article was about embracing Black History Month based on the original purpose, as it wasn't about victimhood but accomplishments & perseverance.
So why would this woman bring up violence committed by black people in the face of me encouraging us to take a moment to appreciate their accomplishments throughout history? Even more so, why has she tasked me with talking to black youths? When did it become my job to do so?