Maybe it’s in Gaelic

They aren’t his ideas lmao, he’s not exactly Marx or something. He parrots basic socialist rhetoric. I can engage with that just fine without ever having to waste my time on Hasan.

Just to be clear, your sole problem with Hasan is his net worth? lol.

His concern for the poor.

Unproven. “You can’t have genuine concern for the poor without being poor” is definitely one of the opinions of all time. You haven’t even tried to justify it.

They aren’t his ideas lmao, he’s not exactly Marx or something. He parrots basic socialist rhetoric. I can engage with that just fine without ever having to waste my time on Hasan.

Cool, not relevant.

Besides that, there’s no healthy reason for you to be this invested in defending a streamer. Politics should not be a cult of personality if you actually want to achieve anything.

Says someone writing pages about it along with many lies.

He is dishonest by pretending to align with socialist ideals while hoarding money, to the extent of buying oversized property in what is probably the 3rd or 4th most infamously-expensive place in the country.

Dishonesty requires being dishonest about something. What is he being dishonest about?

He could’ve donated that money to help the people he claims he wants to see helped.

Cool so suppose he did that and was sufficiently poor for your liking would you have something to actually say about his views?

You seem way more invested in hating than engaging with his ideas.

‘God of All Machines, today you have judged your servants worthy of your Great Work,’ said Kotov, letting his voice carry over the entire command deck. ‘And for this we give thanks. Glory to the Omnissiah!’

Cool now look up the definition of a “grift” and explain how it applies.

And a grifter, which I already said.

Cool unsubstantiated opinion.

Yeah this is ridiculous criticism. If he was poor and arguing for socialism he would be called jealous. Now he’s rich and arguing for socialism and your criticism is…what exactly? That he takes care of his family? Seems like ad hominem attacks to avoid having to engage with what he’s saying.

Yeah none of that represents Hasan’s views but cool rant

I don’t think Diogenes was a drunk. He was rawdogging his equivalent of a cardboard box.

The 1/3rd of eligible voters who didn’t vote in 2024 aren’t MAGA . They’re just some combination of dissolutioned and ignorant. They’re also not up to the task of navigating the pathetic state of the modern information environment.

The “you are free to use a calculator” is just perfect. Pure art.

The real lesson here is that fucks were inside trucks the whole time.

What even if civilization really

Unburned methane escaping is far far worse for climate change than burning it so yeah these strike are bad.

It’s the so called payer-decider gap. The costs of this are spread out among basically the whole world (payers) while the deciders of when to end this war are basically just the US and Israel (deciders).

Since they don’t bear the full consequences of the war, they don’t have to consider the full consequences when deciding.

I am not sure how abstinence only being the only acceptable option is any better than it being the best option.

The distinction is important because perpetuating their only acceptable option despite it being demonstrably ineffective indicates that child welfare is not the primacy concern in play.

Again being Pro-life does not necessarily mean that they will vote for dismantling social services.

And yet, despite it not being necessarily true it is absolutely true in every practical sense in reality.

I simply don’t understand why you insist on assuming that they are lying.

I simply don’t understand why you insist on taking political talking points as 100 percent sincere instead of looking at the tangible actions being taken in this space.

Is that not what you are doing? You are blaming them for voting how they do.

You don’t even know what to do with this definition after quoting it. If course I “blame” them for voting how they do. Is assigning someone responsibility for their actions “demonizing” them? Lol. You’re lost in the sauce bruh.

Ultimately I think we have reached that 3rd situation. I have decided that nothing I say is going to change your mind on this and am choosing to walk away.

Other countries are able to have this discussion in far more healthy and productive ways. Instead of being content with your one insight that prolife and pro-choice are talking past each other, I suggest you ask yourself why that is, and why this positioning of the discussion is basically unique to the US. There’s a whole wide world out there.

But, before I do that, I think you have lost what my original argument was about. I am asserting that the abortion debate will never end due to each side arguing about disparate things.

Since you’re apparently lost, I’ll make I’ll summarize - the two sides talking past each other is how this issue was engineered. This is a manufactured debate designed for political purposes, and not for the welfare of kids. There’s a reason this nonsense took hold in the US and nowhere else in the western world.

But this ignores one of their central beliefs; that abstinence only is the best education to reduce abortions.

They absolutely don’t believe that lol. They believe it is the only acceptable option (even it demonstrably doesn’t work).

Next you talk about dismantling social safety nets. From looking at a few Pro-life groups many of them do not really talk about changing social services for kids at all. The ones that do talk about increasing education, providing counseling, and promoting adoption as an option. I think what the misunderstanding might be is that many people who are Pro-life are also republican who also believe in a reduction of government social services in favor of private services. This assignment of belief is not transferable. What I mean by this is that being Pro-life does not necessarily equate to wanting to dismantle social safety nets.

I simply don’t understand why you insist on taking what everyone says at face value while ignoring their actual actions - how they vote.

Last thing that you mentioned that I want to comment on is about single-issue voters. Of course I would encourage people to be aware about all the issues that affect them. But I do not agree with the demonization of single-issue voters.

I’m not demonizing them lol. I’m calling them stupid. If you’re a single issue voter, you are completely captive. The guy who embodies your one key issue can do anything else they want because they know they have you. Single issue voters always end up being suckers in there end.

I think I agree, but I really don’t think it matters. What, are Trump’s ideas coherent or something? What I trust is Bernie’s overall intent. He’s kind of unique in this way because of his decades of consistent political sctivism. Had Bernie been elected in 2016 somehow and we got 8 years of Bernie, the US would still be a capitalist society. It just might be slightly better one.

I think a great example of naive ideas that have dominated political discussion on the left is student loan forgiveness. Like I’m not opposed - if PPP loan forgiveness is acceptable then student loan forgiveness is infinitely more acceptable. No brainer. But the complete lack of discussion about structural reform to the college tuition situation that causes people to need such huge student loans in the first place makes me think that the whole issue was to some extent controlled opposition.

You could have gotten 100 percent student loan forgiveness - the whole thing passed and done and student loans would immediately start to pile up again the next day. Probably even higher tuition too.

You don’t actually expect me to believe that you think all Pro-life people believe that children don’t deserve a good home. Sure there might be some people out there like that. But it’s much more likely that the majority of people do actually care.

Instead of appealing to your own incredulity, perhaps you could just look at the other actions of the people involved. If the people claiming to be Pro Life to prevent child murder, they would take actions to prevent that outcome through comprehensive sex education and contraceptive availability. Most of them don’t. They would also not vote to annihilate social safety nets for children once they are born. Most of them do. Taking those into account suggests that child welfare is not the only or even the dominant goal of the movement.

If your entire argument is that there exists some pro life people who care about these things then sure, you “win” that’s not relevant to the overall situation. The dominant views and actions of the pro life movement in the US stem from a concerted effort to create a political wedge and to create captive single-issue voters. It worked.

The US is not unique here in its diversity of views. All across the world people (even pro-choice people) don’t “like” abortion. There is no preference for it. It is for most people a (very) necessary evil. But most western countries have managed to deal with the the abortion issue in a healthier and effective way that is more aligned with the stated goals of the pro life movement than what the actual pro life movement has managed in the US.

Acting like this is some free, open ethical debate devoid of political manipulation between people trying to save children and people trying to maintain women’s bodily autonomy is hopelessly naive.

This is why Taft deserves S-tier.

https://youtu.be/L63J_ZluKJ4

Doesn’t answer your question but this is all I have the say about this dude

https://youtu.be/Wu-FxBk-450