Some, in my opinion, faulty assumptions here. 3/10 vs 9/10 car ownership, let's break that down. So there are more cars per person now, is that really guaranteed to be an improvement? Note that I'm not even arguing it can't be an improvement, just that it's not inherently one. Childlessness is on the rise, women are working, there are more single people. If women were mostly stay at home, and didn't need a car during the day...boom, there's 5/10 cars gone, or roughly. Bringing you down to 4/10, which is close to 3/10. It was just a different environment. It's like saying we live better lives now, or have more opportunity, just because everyone has a smartphone. Which is a laughable statement.
I'd also need to see his definitions of things like "person" (children don't need cars), and homeownership (do the stay at home wives/mothers count as not owning a home?). Also, pardon me for being skeptical of a rainbow flagger talking about family life as they - #NotAll, and all that - tend to be very anti-family.
So, yeah, you've got more single people, more childlessness, more working women. Of course homeownership and car ownership are going to be higher now. Heck, adjusted for those issues, homeownership may very well be down, depending on how this was mathed.
The tweeter than goes on to cite GDP...which is notoriously fake and gay. I don't give a single shit about GDP, especially if it was in a less globalized environment; more of the money was staying in the community/country. GDP isn't a completely worthless metric, but it's often used by Statist goons who think people are nice little communist-style cogs in the machine.
I don't know this guy's politics - although I can make assumptions based on prominent sexuality and pronouns - but it's pretty funny he's pushing the GDP-line, when I wouldn't be surprised if it goes against all his other beliefs generally, when not being used as a bludgeon against the family.
So, yeah, his cars and home ownership have some at least potential holes in it...and college is in many ways completely useless, and getting more so. The metrics just don't, to me, make a compelling argument.
So there are more cars per person now, is that really guaranteed to be an improvement?
yes
If women were mostly stay at home, and didn't need a car during the day...boom, there's 5/10 cars gone, or roughly.
I don't know what you're smoking, but every 1-income household I know still has 2 cars. Do you not understand the concept of needing to run errands and do shopping during the day?
It's like saying we live better lives now, or have more opportunity, just because everyone has a smartphone. Which is a laughable statement.
It's a correct statement and you calling it "laughable" for reasons unknown does not invalidate it. Perhaps you just hate smartphones, I don't know, but they are unarguably an extraordinary advance for society. Everyone can walk around with the whole power of the internet in the palm of their hand.
Also, pardon me for being skeptical of a rainbow flagger talking about
Bo-fucking-ho. Also, you cut off the part where I explain why that leads to my skepticism. It's not 'oh, he's gay, I don't listen to faggots' it's 'oh, he's gay, and I've noticed trends in aggregate in that community that leads to a bias against family.'
Ironic coming from someone who was just yesterday saying "Blacks are more easily programmed because they are so mentally inferior to all other races as a group, in aggregate."
That's alright, but me pointing out that gays are often anti-family is 'ad hominem.' If true, don't care.
Oh, and GDP is fake and gay, I stand by that. And I did say it's not completely useless, just often manipulated.
True, I should have been more specific. I meant more 'ideologically Gay' than just 'homosexual.' I think there's some overlap, but it's really the Gays that are most staunchly anti-family, versus the gays.
they are unarguably an extraordinary advance for society. Everyone can walk around with the whole power of the internet in the palm of their hand.
And everything just keeps going to sh*t due to them.
Just because I use a smartphone, does not mean that I have to pretend that they have not done an enormous amount of damage to society. That is no advance.
okay, I'm done here.
I'd rather have a lower GDP with healthy families, low crime, a homogeneous society, than a higher GDP with rampant disorder, gangs, fatherlessness, crime everywhere, and an atomized society.
Just because I use a smartphone, does not mean that I have to pretend that they have not done an enormous amount of damage to society. That is no advance.
What harm do you think smartphones have done? It's literally just a tool. How people use it is up to them and human nature. It's like saying "guns are bad".
If you have a problem with social media in particular, that's not smart phones. Tiktok isn't smart phones.
It's literally just a tool. How people use it is up to them and human nature. It's like saying "guns are bad".
I'd argue it's more like 'porn is harmful' or '24/7 news is harmful' or 'fast food is harmful.' It comes down to personal choice in all those issues but, on average and society wide, it's making things worse.
If you have a problem with social media in particular, that's not smart phones. Tiktok isn't smart phones.
Smartphones make all the more accessible, 24/7. Smartphones make the perpetually online life more accessible. There's a lot of overlap between smartphones and social media.
What harm do you think smartphones have done? It's literally just a tool. How people use it is up to them and human nature. It's like saying "guns are bad".
By that logic, nothing at all is bad. You could claim that smartphones are not inherently bad, and I'll agree with that, but how they are used certainly makes them a net negative. That is why the modern West has become the shithole that it is.
If you have a problem with social media in particular, that's not smart phones. Tiktok isn't smart phones.
There's potential for an infinite number of Tiktoks. And besides, it's not just Tiktok. How do you think you export troonery and BLM to other countries? It is through Facebook, Youtube and Twitter.
Some, in my opinion, faulty assumptions here. 3/10 vs 9/10 car ownership, let's break that down. So there are more cars per person now, is that really guaranteed to be an improvement? Note that I'm not even arguing it can't be an improvement, just that it's not inherently one. Childlessness is on the rise, women are working, there are more single people. If women were mostly stay at home, and didn't need a car during the day...boom, there's 5/10 cars gone, or roughly. Bringing you down to 4/10, which is close to 3/10. It was just a different environment. It's like saying we live better lives now, or have more opportunity, just because everyone has a smartphone. Which is a laughable statement.
I'd also need to see his definitions of things like "person" (children don't need cars), and homeownership (do the stay at home wives/mothers count as not owning a home?). Also, pardon me for being skeptical of a rainbow flagger talking about family life as they - #NotAll, and all that - tend to be very anti-family.
So, yeah, you've got more single people, more childlessness, more working women. Of course homeownership and car ownership are going to be higher now. Heck, adjusted for those issues, homeownership may very well be down, depending on how this was mathed.
The tweeter than goes on to cite GDP...which is notoriously fake and gay. I don't give a single shit about GDP, especially if it was in a less globalized environment; more of the money was staying in the community/country. GDP isn't a completely worthless metric, but it's often used by Statist goons who think people are nice little communist-style cogs in the machine.
I don't know this guy's politics - although I can make assumptions based on prominent sexuality and pronouns - but it's pretty funny he's pushing the GDP-line, when I wouldn't be surprised if it goes against all his other beliefs generally, when not being used as a bludgeon against the family.
So, yeah, his cars and home ownership have some at least potential holes in it...and college is in many ways completely useless, and getting more so. The metrics just don't, to me, make a compelling argument.
yes
I don't know what you're smoking, but every 1-income household I know still has 2 cars. Do you not understand the concept of needing to run errands and do shopping during the day?
It's a correct statement and you calling it "laughable" for reasons unknown does not invalidate it. Perhaps you just hate smartphones, I don't know, but they are unarguably an extraordinary advance for society. Everyone can walk around with the whole power of the internet in the palm of their hand.
literal ad hominem
okay, I'm done here.
Bo-fucking-ho. Also, you cut off the part where I explain why that leads to my skepticism. It's not 'oh, he's gay, I don't listen to faggots' it's 'oh, he's gay, and I've noticed trends in aggregate in that community that leads to a bias against family.'
Ironic coming from someone who was just yesterday saying "Blacks are more easily programmed because they are so mentally inferior to all other races as a group, in aggregate."
That's alright, but me pointing out that gays are often anti-family is 'ad hominem.' If true, don't care.
Oh, and GDP is fake and gay, I stand by that. And I did say it's not completely useless, just often manipulated.
Deka is a civnat corporatist faggot. Don’t bother.
It's not even "he is a homosexual". It's that he puts that hideous groomer flag in his username, and has pronouns in bio.
True, I should have been more specific. I meant more 'ideologically Gay' than just 'homosexual.' I think there's some overlap, but it's really the Gays that are most staunchly anti-family, versus the gays.
And everything just keeps going to sh*t due to them.
Just because I use a smartphone, does not mean that I have to pretend that they have not done an enormous amount of damage to society. That is no advance.
I'd rather have a lower GDP with healthy families, low crime, a homogeneous society, than a higher GDP with rampant disorder, gangs, fatherlessness, crime everywhere, and an atomized society.
What harm do you think smartphones have done? It's literally just a tool. How people use it is up to them and human nature. It's like saying "guns are bad".
If you have a problem with social media in particular, that's not smart phones. Tiktok isn't smart phones.
I'd argue it's more like 'porn is harmful' or '24/7 news is harmful' or 'fast food is harmful.' It comes down to personal choice in all those issues but, on average and society wide, it's making things worse.
Smartphones make all the more accessible, 24/7. Smartphones make the perpetually online life more accessible. There's a lot of overlap between smartphones and social media.
By that logic, nothing at all is bad. You could claim that smartphones are not inherently bad, and I'll agree with that, but how they are used certainly makes them a net negative. That is why the modern West has become the shithole that it is.
There's potential for an infinite number of Tiktoks. And besides, it's not just Tiktok. How do you think you export troonery and BLM to other countries? It is through Facebook, Youtube and Twitter.