Posts by Steven Fox37

Maria Wells14 said:Given everything going down over the last few days, I’m starting to feel like America is sliding straight into an Ochlocracy.

(Ochlocracy—basically mob rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy

For those who aren't political science nerds—and look, no offense intended, I don't pretend to know anything about nuclear physics, so it's perfectly normal that most people aren't experts in political theory—there's a real difference between this and a true democracy. In a democracy, the government responds to the *demos*—the political body that actually functions through established institutions and reaches conclusions based on actual arguments.

We’re seeing it now with the teacher strikes, we saw it recently with the Madonna drama, and before that with Caesar... you name it. It’s like faith in our institutions and in basic logic has just evaporated. Everything is being driven by raw emotion. The people winning the arguments are the ones who are the loudest and most aggressive, not the ones who actually have a point.
Our institutions are weak—most people don't trust them, which basically makes it impossible for them to do their jobs.
Anyone who’s unhappy with a decision can just rally a mob or find a powerful connection, and the officials will fold because they don't want to deal with a public lynching or the wrath of some big-shot politician.

At its core, society is built on economics—the whole system of how we produce, distribute, and consume stuff.
Right now, the tax share of our GDP is around 47%, though if you factor in the shadow economy, it’s realistically closer to 36%.
The shadow economy is inherently immoral; people dodge their obligations to society while still reaping all the benefits. Then you have the "white" economy—that 47% goes to the budget, but when you add in at least another 19% of business activity that relies on corruption-riddled government contracts, you end up with a situation where only about a third of reported income isn't tied back to state influence.
If you crunch all the numbers, it drops to maybe 25%.
The bottom line is that this 66% within the formal economy is all about distribution.
In a society like this, the most important thing isn't producing goods or services on a free market—it's making sure you're positioned correctly within the distribution chain.

And when institutions are weak, massive corruption sets in. It eats away at the social fabric, and the people with less power band together in groups to try and force their interests through non-institutional pressure.

Sorry for the lecture; I'm just genuinely worried about the country I love.
I remember the grand ideals we held when we were first building this nation, dreaming of creating something successful and truly democratic. We haven't hit that mark, and now it feels like we're drifting even further away from democracy itself.

Question for you guys.
Which way is America heading? Toward true democracy, toward Ochlocracy, or some other kind of social arrangement entirely?

That’s pure fantasy. You really think we live in a country where the people reach decisions based on logic and debate? It doesn't happen anywhere.
You're just kidding yourselves, and then you act shocked when things fall apart. Seriously, what kind of system did we think we were building?

Elizabeth Mendoza said:Man, people really drive climate change, don't they? Every single time the conversation shifts to record-breaking temperatures, massive snowfalls, or extreme heatwaves and cold snaps, everyone starts pointing back to the 1800s. Back then, there were seven times fewer people on the planet and who knows how much less industrial activity compared to now. If we're looking at those numbers, who was actually influencing the climate back then?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...s-not-climate/

wiredrider9 said:just give me the names of this 99% of scientists then

Yeah, because the UN is totally an organization dedicated to the betterment of humanity, right? 🙏

If you look at the gap between the UN and the total jokers you all are becoming, any sane person could guess who they’re actually going to believe.

Amy Nelson4 said:So, you’re basically agreeing that it’s not the tool itself that kills, but the person who decides to use it for killing?

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing. Honestly, it’s such a loaded, nonsensical question designed specifically to force a "people, not guns" response, which then lets a clever interlocutor jump in and say, "Well, if guns aren't the problem, then we shouldn't regulate them, right?" It's a total trap.
That's exactly why I hate when you try to corner me with those little phrases like "so you're saying," "you mean," or "so your point is." It feels like you're just trying to shove words into my mouth.

Amy Nelson4 said:I mean, you literally just said you could use a knife, some scissors, or even a baseball bat as a weapon... which, if we're being technical, is basically the definition of a negative function, isn't it?🤷

Look, if two thugs jump you and try to break your knees, and you grab a brick and crack one of them over the head so the other runs away—is that really a "negative function"?
Or take a scenario that’s even more morally clear: you see three creeps cornering some woman, and you step in with a brick or a bat to save her.

In both those cases, we're talking about positive functions, yet in both scenarios, you're using a brick, a bat, a knife, or scissors as a weapon. A weapon isn't inherently bad, just like it isn't inherently good.

Amy Nelson4 said:So, I guess you actually *do* agree with me—that at the end of the day, people take tools and put them into use that can be either positive or negative. For instance, with a knife, you can slice up some steak, or... well, you could stab your neighbor. Or with a firearm, you can go hunting or defend your property, or you could head into the city and just start spraying bullets at innocent bystanders.

How am I supposed to agree with you when we weren't even talking about "positive vs. negative" functions? We were discussing primary versus secondary uses. Now you're just twisting the argument because you realized you hit a dead end earlier.

Amy Nelson4 said:Well, yeah—knives *are* weapons. They fall right under the "cold weapons" category, and honestly, they're probably the oldest type of weaponry we've ever used. And since weapons kill—to use Matthew Young35's logic, we should probably just get rid of them before they kill us—then... yeah.😬

But, uh, getting back to my original point: I don't think Monsanto is the real issue here (nor is it the people actually doing the killing), it's more about the government—the state—allowing this garbage to be imported for food (not to mention letting total lunatics own firearms).

Sure, you can use a knife as a weapon, just like you could use a pair of scissors or a baseball bat. But that isn't what a kitchen knife is for, is it? It's not the main purpose of scissors or a bat either. They exist for food prep and everyday tasks.
When we talk about "cold weapons" (like swords or sabers) versus "firearms" (pistols, rifles, etc.), their primary—and usually only—purpose is to injure or kill a person.
Come on, don't give me that. You know deep down this is the truth. 😁

Amy Nelson4 said:Wait, where exactly am I comparing bricks and scissors to a gun? 🤔

So, if we're talking about that powder, you basically said the exact same thing as when you mentioned clearing all the sharp objects out of the house. Isn't that interesting? It feels like you're drawing a direct line between common kitchen knives, scissors, and other everyday sharps and actual weapons. Is that really what you're implying?

Amy Nelson4 said:I mean, seriously, as if food and weapons are even remotely comparable categories.🙄

If we’re really going to claim that bricks and scissors are on par with a handgun, then we might as well say a bomb and a pistol are just different ways of serving up food. Makes sense, right?
Think about it this way: a brick isn't designed to kill you, and neither are a pair of scissors. Their whole purpose is building things up or cutting things down. Food works exactly the same way. Its primary job is to nourish us and keep us alive, right? But just like those tools, if you use them the wrong way, they can become lethal. It’s all about how you apply them.
If we’re actually following your logic here, then what? Is that really where we end up?

But that’s exactly the point! If you look at it through that lens, then you can’t really pin anything on Monsanto (now Bayer) either. At the end of the day, they’re just manufacturing goods and selling them to the market, right?

Matthew Young35 said:"Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of 'eco-refugees,'"

And yet, here we are. It's happening.
What's Your Point

They clearly can't read if they think this article is claiming all of this is going to happen back in 2000.

wiredrider9 said:And look, just take a local spot like a park in San Francisco—if the trees there get sick (and I won't even go there regarding politics or the sheer lack of care from the city), if someone doesn't step up and deal with those dying trees, they’ll just spread until the whole forest is toast. Sure, maybe a brutal winter might stall things for a bit, but then what? The whole woods would be gone, animal habitats would vanish, and everything else follows suit. It's a mess.

We really need to alert the scientific community immediately! Apparently, humans can act both positively and negatively—now that's the groundbreaking discovery they've been missing all this time!

Gerald Fowler79 said:I’ve gotta ask—what’s actually the point of banning someone when, in this case, the exact same person, Justin Baker6, was posting under the alias Unknown at the very same minute? He's just spreading the same garbage to everyone, just like you can see in the original post for this thread, right?

Just admit the whole banning thing is a joke so we can all stop pretending. 🙄

What are they going to do, have the moderators raid his house and cut his internet cable?
The reality is, all he needs to make a new account is a different email and a quick router reset. We're talking five minutes of work, tops.
The only thing mods can actually do is ban him again once he shows his face.

Henry Garcia13 said:I realize that LGBTQ+ rights and the concept of new gender identities aren't inherently political orientations. It feels more like modern leftists are attempting to weaponize them into a primary political ideology—a convenient distraction from their failed economic policies. Personally, I have nothing against these rights or any individual liberties, but this should be an intimate, private matter focused on protecting personal integrity. Instead, we’re being subjected to this relentless, irritating bombardment from NGOs, political parties, and the mainstream media. Regarding how this ideological divide plays out, I'll start by pointing out the hypocrisy within the left, which isn't actually about ideology at all, and then move on...

And for the record, fascism has absolutely nothing to do with the populism seen in the modern right, let alone conservatism. Nor is fascism some synonym for a Satanic ideology, at least not in its original sense...

I think we can find some common ground here. Like I’ve mentioned before, you and I probably agree on a whole bunch of things, but there is absolutely no way I'm voting for a radical John Doe. 😁

Henry Garcia13 said:Fine, now even Koba isn't good enough—and I actually thought he was the best...

I was under the naive impression that centrism was tied first to liberalism—the classic kind, at least—before evolving into this modern product that started gaining traction before WWII. No one should be banning homosexual relations, but for liberals, individual liberties are supposedly the primary focus. That’s where the whole mantra comes from: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, free media, individual and religious rights, freedom of assembly, gender identity, and so on and so forth... though since liberalism literally means liberty, there's really no need to list it all out. Then come the failed economic theories and political thoughts with much later roots. Honestly, the entire ideology is an extreme, parasitic, and inert thing. It shouldn't be surprising then, given how they bombard us with gender issues and constant innovations in human rights terminology just to justify their own unwarranted existence as the mainstream. Their role is essentially to act as vanguard NGO groups, nothing more.

And regarding the way people point fingers at the right today, accusing them of fascism—not just here in this thread, but everywhere—I think it's all completely arbitrary and baseless...

This whole idea of a "division" is just a mess. You're claiming gay rights are central because they're "liberal," and then saying "liberals" are in the center. It's like you're just slapping a label on a group you don't like and then declaring that gay rights belong wherever that group sits. Gay rights aren't a political party or a specific political orientation that you can just slot into a division like that. You have left-right in an economic sense, and liberal-conservative in a social sense. Even if that distinction feels a bit too simplistic sometimes, let's face it: people are complex beasts.

Henry Garcia13 said:It’s a fair point, really. They aren't right-wing, nor have they ever been... but you can't exactly call them Marxists either. In any standard political breakdown, those views sit squarely in the center. I mentioned how Bill Clinton and Tony Blair essentially gutted the old social-democratic parties, pivoting them toward a more liberal-democratic stance—which is exactly what we're seeing now. Meanwhile, the populist vacuum left behind by the left was filled by conservative parties, which transformed into true people's parties. Politics doesn't tolerate empty space, and since the left stopped speaking to the working class, someone else had to step up.

Even the label itself is meaningless if you look at the history. Take the original fascists under Mussolini in Italy; their style of governance was relatively benign in the early stages, much like how certain communist regimes operated in Eastern Europe back in the day. The term "fascism" originally evoked the power of the Roman Empire. Before they were tainted by Nazi influence, these movements didn't push ethno-racial agendas or anti-Semitic policies. Mussolini himself started as a leftist union leader and even established a socialist republic after his initial coup. He used to claim he was a bigger socialist than Marx ever was.

This modern, forced definition of "fascism"—the one the left uses as a convenient weapon to disqualify anyone they disagree with—is fundamentally wrong, just as I've laid out here...☕

What "traditional breakdown" are we even talking about here? Economic? Because there's no such thing as "gay rights" on an economic scale—it's not left, right, or center. You're just slapping the label of gay rights onto the centrists and neoliberals because they use social issues as a shield for their unpopular economic agendas. They use anti-racism as a cover too, so does that mean everyone has to be a racist? Every political platform has to provide answers to both social and economic questions. That's not just politics; it's the reality of the world we live in.
As for the legacy of Marxism-Leninism, Lenin actually decriminalized homosexual acts. Then Stalin came along and banned them again. So, it seems to me you're more interested in the legacy of Stalinism.

says:
What does it even mean to call someone a "leftist" when they roll into Kentucky and basically tell everyone, "Just so you know... we're planning to shut down all your coal mines in the coming years and leave you high and dry!!!!!"?
And what about the people clapping for her?

The issue isn't actually about wanting to close those mines. The real problem is that there’s zero actual plan to find jobs for the people getting laid off. Instead, they offer these "coding bootcamps," where they expect some 55-year-old to suddenly master HTML and CSS—only to realize they still won't get hired because companies will always pick a bright-eyed 20-year-old over them anyway. Moving away from fossil fuels is a necessity, sure. But the problem with Clinton is the assumption that she can just shut everything down and rely on the "invisible hand" to somehow magically find former miners new work somewhere else.

Chris Myers said:Nope. Sorry.

It wasn't a pole shift; it was just a role shift.

Neither left nor right.

The issue with the left today isn't a surplus of gay rights; it's a deficit of socialism. Removing one doesn't mean the other will spontaneously appear. And personally? I have no intention of voting for Boone types wearing red paint.

Henry Garcia13 said:And what "left" are we even talking about? The main parties claiming that label are embarrassed by social democracy, let alone anything more substantial. You can't seriously believe that LGBTQ+ rights define the entire left wing of the political spectrum. Once figures like Bill Clinton or Tony Blair stripped away the core leftist principles in favor of "Third Way" neoliberalism, the mainstream left effectively ceased to exist. They left a vacuum, and it was filled by conservative populist movements. Marx would probably take his own life if he saw what these so-called "leftist" parties have morphed into today...

Then which side is it? The right? 🤦

🤣

Just another 🤣 for my very first post! I just realized he was actually trying to protect this user's privacy by stripping her nickname from the first sentence of the quote, only to leave it right there in the second one

Larry Ortiz5 said:Try using this https://osdn.net/projects/crystaldis...Info7_7_0.exe/ tool to check the actual health of the hard drive. Also, just curious—is the case level? Is the drive sitting on a flat surface?

The drive is on a flat surface and the case is fine.
I'll give that program a shot later. I actually pulled the drive out of the case already, and I'm planning to drop it off at Best Buy on Monday so they can take a look and see what's going on with it.