He wants them illegal so they maintain having no legal recourse for his mistreatment. Can't sue your employer if your presence in the country is illegal.
Remember, the left is always guilty of that which the assert from their enemies. Misinformation is a cornerstone of leftism.
Didn't Jimmy say at one point that he fucked up with Wikipedia, but it was too late to fix it now? You'd think someone who had such an epiphany wouldn't turn around and double down on the retardation.
Understanding linguistics and language is not tolerance. But you enjoy hyperfocusing on semantics and optics. I'm sure that will pay off and really convince the people who hate you to not hate you anymore, because it's worked so well in the past.
Let me guess: you bitched about a negative HIV test, didn't you?
Toeing the progressive line on trans stuff means that you believe people can't change their gender
Being around progs long enough, I can tell you that's the OLD progressive line. The new prog line is that it's none of your fucking business, a person can be trans for literally any reason they want and their health costs should be paid for by someone else with no questions asked.
It's the "no questions asked" which is what they like to use to really push the point, because asking questions could be harmful and cause suicide, which means you're literally murdering trans people.
You're trying to wrap this up in consistent logic, but there is no consistent logic. 2/3 liberals are diagnosed as mentally ill, and I'm willing to bet that a significant portion of that remaining third are still mentally ill, a doctor just hasn't told them it yet. You're trying to rationalise the irrational.
Why couldn’t this lady go to a state with open abortion?
Because that's not an article that helps propagate fear. Because there isn't a real woman in this story, this is just fiction presented as fact.
generally scrambling to cover over their failures before they become too obvious
I have to disagree on this specific point, solely because they know that the average dumbfuck doesn't want to accept reality even if it stares them in the face, because it's too bitter of a pill to swallow. Denial is their coping mechanism of choice, and I think the elites know that. So while they put some effort into denial, it's more like a literal handwave, which is apparently enough for the vast, vast majority of normies.
Otherwise, I agree with the other points.
To be fair to normies that are against nuclear, a big part of that is Green Scare Propaganda, where they're told of the horrors of things like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, even though one of those was a direct failure of the state cutting corners, and the other resulted in no deaths and minimal natural impact.
I cannot truly blame people who are ignorant of topics that aren't something that would impact their day to day life. It would be weird to expect normal people to know the pros, cons and inner workings of different energy generation methods, because unless you're working in the industry or something adjacent to it, there's little need to know anything about it.
That said, advocates (particularly those that have political presences) are another story. And I don't just mean someone who's ultimately a normie but has been lead to believe "renewables" is the way, but those that DO know more than the average person on nuclear and STILL kneejerks against it because they refuse to understand the technological advances that have been made. For fucks sake, the handwringing is almost exclusively about Chernobyl, a reactor that was notoriously poorly built, but beyond that was first started construction in '72, meaning that most of the designs were from the 60s. And it's baffling that people cannot comprehend that humanity as a whole has made significant scientific advancements in nuclear energy production over the course of over half a fucking century. And that's with massive stigma and uphill battles to secure funding for this research.
So again, I understand the ignorance from normies because there's no reasonable expectation for them to know the knowledge, but it's certainly not excusable by people that claim to have some sort of knowledge on the topic. We cannot survive creating a world reliant upon batteries and renewables that barely last a decade before needing to be replaced and then the old ones can barely be recycled if they can be recycled at all.
Not much on hand, to be honest. But a good place to start is to simply read up on Thorium Salt Reactors in the first place, and generally a lot of these topics will be covered or natural leads into those other points. That said, if there's anything specific, I could try to go through some of my shit to find if I ended up saving it or not.
Except that Nuclear actually is the greenest energy we have. The impact from solar and wind is far greater than most realise. Solar requires ridiculous amounts of mining for all the silicon needed in solar panels and to be replaced every few years, and wind turbine blades cannot be recycled and need to be changed out every 5 or so years IIRC.
By contrast, thorium salt reactors cannot go into meltdown (because by design the operation is already in "meltdown"), there is enough thorium on Earth that if we switched solely to thorium salt reactors it would last hundreds of generations (even accounting for population growth) and thorium is pretty abundant in space as well. On top of that, old reactor designs were highly inefficient. For one, uranium was used because it provided by-products that could be used for making weapons. But secondly, it only burned about 30% of the material before it needed to be thrown away and stored underground. However, there are modern reactor designs that can burn ~80% of the material making it far more efficient, AND there are waste burners that can use the vast majority of that remaining 20% (as well as the old stuff that's been stored underground and elsewhere, which would mean that efforts could be made to get rid of/heavily reduce already stored waste and clean up those areas for environmental rehabilitation).
On top of this, any nuclear emissions are just steam, as water is what is heated to turn the turbines in a reactor. In fact, coal burning actually produces more radioactive emissions per kW than nuclear due to imperfect burning.
And lastly, on top of all of that, Nuclear Energy is also the safest. Including tragedies, there are significantly less deaths per kW produced than any other power generation due to the dangers of material collection and worksite safety.
There is a reason that both coal/oil/gas and "green" energy suppliers lobby against nuclear, because it's a major threat to them.
After decades upon decades of the UN routinely abusing people, what made you think that this would be fake? How much do you need to see before you start to stop giving people who despise your existence any benefit of the doubt?
These tyrants do not deserve benefit of the doubt, because there should be no doubt, ESPECIALLY regarding the UN, who know all about hunger as a motivator. Just ask their "aid workers" that were trading food for sex with local minors. They'll be able to tell you all about it.
Well duh, of course the UN knows about the incentive of world hunger. Remember, it was UN "Humanitarian Workers" that withheld food aid for sex from local minors. The UN is well versed in the usefulness of starvation to motivate people to do what they want.
Cool story, they're still absolutely pieces of shit that are fine with destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands of people under the idea of "health concerns".
I don't give a fuck about their safety, politicians should be afraid. Reminds them that their job is (supposed to be, but often isn't) reliant upon the people, not on their own whims.
Cool story bro, don't care. I was only pointing out that your incredulity means jack and shit, and has zero effect on the statistics.
Except reactionary doesn't have to be total opposites, merely in opposition. And generally to a point/topic/issue that is usually largely ignored by other positions. It's key feature is being in reaction to something else, not that it's in opposites.
Using a linguistic argument, it could be said that many democrats are reactionary not in opposition, but rather in support of Current Topic™. Be that current topic immigration, vaccination, taxation, transgenderism, etc, etc, etc. Their support isn't based on anything other than a reaction, but rather than the stereotypical reaction of opposition, the reaction is knee-jerk support.
I may be a little late in future replies
We're on the internet. Contrary to the current dominant belief/entitlement to instant gratification, the benefit of a forum is that you can take as long or as little time as you like to respond (generally within reason though. It's a bit odd if you leave months to respond).
FYI for clarity's sake I am defining "reactionary" as someone who explicitly rejects specific liberal/progressive core values, not someone who is merely responding to the latest liberal/progressive platform.
I think that's the issue. It's a mismatch of definitions.
I would disagree that "conservatives" are a reaction to what is the current leftist position is, but rather that conservatives are progressives who are simply lagging behind the even more progressive faction.
Honestly, this is a tomayto/tomahto argument in that it ultimately doesn't matter what their specific function is, because it all ends the same way. Are they reactionaries? Are they actually progressives? Are they overwhelmingly controlled opposition? None of it matters because the end result is unified: they allow progressive ideas at a slow enough pace to prevent pushback.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is no such thing as "too far", only too fast. Change shit slow enough and normies will accept it.
Not as vitriolic of a topic, but I really noticed it with Net Neutrality. Because I actually knew what it was, I knew it was a stupid law to let law enforcement (further) through the door. But it didn't matter, because NN was the latest Thing™. Where once people were against shit like SOPA and PIPA, now they were shilling for government oversight.
It's only made me feel more vindicated since it got repealed and then literally none of the fearmongering the left went on about came to pass. It really does show how manufactured so much of this has become, and it makes me wary of any common internet belief, from "Epstein Didn't Kill Himself" (which I do think was organic even with the doubt), to the sudden and rather overnight flip into hating cryptocurrency (I believe this is manufactured).
The worst part about it is how demoralising it is, and knowing that it's meant to be demoralising only makes it hit harder too.
I really doubt that
Your incredulity is worthless though. You can choose to doubt it, but it won't change the statistics.
"Women don't have it easier on Twitch"
How in the fuck would you know? This person isn't trans or a male crossdresser, so how in the fuck would they know? This assertion (one that Feminists rely on so very much) comes from the assumption that women know what the male experience is but men cannot possibly know what the female experience is.
But you know how I KNOW women have it easier? Go look at the bottom end of Twitch. You don't even need to look that far to see that any women down there will still have more followers in a far shorter amount of time. You can have guys sitting at a couple hundred followers after doing Twitch regularly for years, but women will be there for a couple months and be about the same level. What's more, they don't even need the cam. They really don't. And I'm not talking about VTuber's, I am solely talking about voice only with maybe a basic avatar.
Women 100% have it easier on Twitch because there is a very real simp culture online, far worse than ever before. And so many women know it. It's why they keep their relationship status a secret or lie and say they're single online (and then call it just their persona). They know they can lead desperate guys on and get tons of cash. And this person is apparently a mod for Amouranth. They 1000% know what they're doing and that it works. Their defence that "weLL EvErYoNe LiKeS BoObS" is just a deflection from the truth that she knows she is playing to.
Are all women like this? Of course not. Does that mean that women have it easy? Also no. But in many places, and Twitch is definitely one of them, women have is easier when compared to men. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or a grifter.
The only disagreement I have here is the idea that republicans aren't also for war. Most of them are pro-establishment. Many would try and call them RINOs, but the reality is that there are more "RINOs" than the supposed "real Republicans". It's time to admit that it's beyond salvaging and RINOs are far more representative of the average Republican than anyone like Rand Paul is, let alone the 90s Democrat that ran on 90s Democrat policies (it's almost like Republicans have compromised for decades).
I love how their first example is net neutrality. You know, that thing that got repealed and all the fearmongering from these retards never came about. It's almost like that's entirely what leftism and establishment shilling relies on: fearmongering.
If you don't want to get pregnant, stop having sex. If you're not ready to have a child, there's a good chance you're not mature enough to have sex anyway.
Far too many here truly believe that the Republicans will miraculously save them because it's easier than coming to terms with the reality that there is no battle between Democrats v Republicans, the battle is Establishment v Public. Everything else is show.