Carrying the flame, even.

"Children, which are entirely optional,

Unfortunately they aren’t entirely optional. Pregnancies can be forced, controls can fail, and abortions denied. Until those aren’t issues, it’s the same dynamic as:

Until medical care is free and you can pay for whatever isnt,

Until children are entirely optional, those without resources to raise them are most likely to be in the category of not choosing to have kids.

It has to be less about those in need not having kids and more about there being less people in need, period.p

But this is childfree, so it’s supposed to be antinatalist. So likewise the value in these posts is drawing out those connections, and not just cheeky accusations of eugencism or rape apologia.

It’s more the idea of only the fittest are capable of reproducing, instead of the more eugenicist take of choosing the characteristics of who is allowed to breed. So I wager it’s more anarcho-capitalist, social-darwinist than explicit eugenicist thought.

Well, there is also logistics.

People, like nurses and doctors, do enjoy helping and taking care of people.

But to do that you need a pretty robust logistics system just to get those people to the people in need, and the supplies needed to help.

You got to get the doctor, with the medicine, to the mountain or you got get the person off the mountain, to the doctor and the medicine.

Now you need all kinds of infrastructure, not to mention what it takes to produce the medicine, or educate the doctors and nurses so they’re not just doing bloodletting and snake bites.

why wasn’t support from powerful socialist allies enough to offset it? And why didn’t comparable interference cause capitalist states to fail at similar rates?

Support was able to offset it for a while. The USSR was also a fundamental ally to the US and its allies. That period of time legitimized and stabilized their existence so that the Cold War started on a semblance of parity and balance.

The USSR pushed the world towards industrialization, technology development and the Space Race, but it took nearly 50 years of seige to bring the USSR to dissolution.

why didn’t comparable interference cause capitalist states to fail at similar rates

The interference simply wasn’t comparable. But more importantly the USSR came out of World War 1. The Imperialist capitalist states were already failing and famously there became some fascist states hell bent on destroying all marxism and bolshevism.

His dad ran Radio Free during the fall of the USSR. Propaganda is in his blood.

I wouldn’t call it inconsistent with the political season. People are going to express their politics before the election, especially leading up to election day.

I’d be more concerned if people were so disengaged they had nothing to discuss.

Yes. Dean Browning was real.

Or with considerable support. Current WA governor for instance ran specifically on more cops and expanding the police state.

I watched him live on Tom Green’s live stream from his living room during this era, right as he was hitting rock bottom.

He got out. And so can anyone else reading this.

But fuck Griffith, i want that twink obliterated.

I mean, right before he did the, uh, stuff he kinda was. A whole buncha torture stuff happened to him before he did the things.

An opening paragraph of a chapter from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, iirc.

She’s helping by stabilizing amperage for the preferred penetration of voltage.

The big event was Reagan busting the air traffic control union. Union really busting took off afterwards since it was demonstrated the government would roll them for private sector interests. Unions that existed just became gutted of power and influence as a result and people stopped joining.

Massie being the closest thing to a decent person in the GOP wasn’t an accolade.

when paired with a work ethic that associates work with self-worth

This was an important part that shouldn’t be discounted since it was still at the core of the argument.

I don’t really have a disagreement with what you’re saying, but please note I said ‘right wing base’, which is predominantly working class.

Social democratic policies can be successful where class consciousness is lacking or suppressed.

It’s a fairly decent strategy to placate the right wing base with social democracy. Even opponents of socialism can’t deny that. I think that’s part of its appeal.

It is ineffective when the rachet effect is in place, though. The neoliberal wing is more focused on maintaining that first and foremost.

You should see the kinds of arguments opponents of the Clean Water Act make.

Ranges from “Nature heals all so it is fine” to “Fuck those people for being there.”

It went back and forth.