I hope I get this thread right because there were no rules; assuming politics.
So, there once was a suggestion in my YouTube channel's recommended videos list about an Asian man - quite well off, mind - who quite simply stated that poor people should be poor, and that we should be sure to make them poor. As an older, mid-twenties man, particularly living in the civilized West, it's come to my attention a lot that poor people are artificially impoverished. Famous comedian Daniel Tosh once said, "Who is employing you people?" when discussing the unemployment in my country. In states such as Oregon, there are people paid to pump gas. It's the only state I know of in the United States of America where people aren't allowed to pump their own gas, or at least the only state where it's common for someone to refuse to let you pump gas. What's even more unusual, these people actually get tips.
So, 1 out of 50.
In terms of an economy, the primary sector provides the precursor, resources, and material necessary for manufacture and retail, while the secondary sector provides manufactured goods (things that have been put together by - usually - skilled hands). The tertiary sector is the service sector, and expanded models offer different 'sectors' of the economy provide further divisions for teachers and government officials. The point is that every person in that model is essentially counted as providing something that's marketable in a capitalist society, but the United States, as of today, is hampered by people who don't actually contribute economic necessity; no one ever steals gas from a pump, and I never see anyone graffiti the handle.
So, while there are people that are paid to, say, contribute nothing, there are also people who aren't paid anything. Moving into new towns, I can tell you, without references, it takes about two or three weeks to get properly integrated to the point of making regular income, if you're good at it; I know some people can do it sooner; grown men sometimes lose money when they're coming over with families. There's no real limit to how many people could be integrated into a functioning economy predicated on product, and the service industry is already chockful of people that I find... questionably fascile.
Without giving offense, it's unusual that the quality of life in the country - standards of living - is possibly of less value because there are so many homeless people on the streets. The government and the working class people of America usually claim it's either because of 'hard times' or because they're 'incapable of holding down a job', which, when expounded on, usually related to their criminal history and poor social standing, refuted behaviors and poor actions done which have lead to them being on the streets.
And while that's definitely true, because it's so common to see homeless people get caught in lies (don't lie, I see it all the time), the destitute are usually less criminal when one exempts the State's action from the worker's class, meaning that the State deliberately keeps people unemployed, destitute, or homeless (or any combination thereof) to its own illegitimate benefit.
Have you ever seen a desperate man hungry? It's almost always possible to get food in the civilized food, without money, but I do see theft from time to time, and the actions of society usually push culturalisms and old values, arguably biblical, which is entertaining to me because it was the same sentiment shared by Vladimir Putin about Russia with regard to their more liberal citizens.
When you approach liberalism, those expansions on language and choice are artificial at best, just like the sentiments I find from the liberal legislators, where the political agenda of the Democratic Party in the United States of America essentially works for increased marginalization and regulation, and the Republican Party usually pushes for decreased regulation and a filibuster.
All of this means: citizens are labeled, distinguished, and trafficked (legally-speaking, moved for profit) to the benefit of those who also push for anti-discrimination laws, which were popularized by voters of the liberal mindset. Think fair pay, the Civil Rights amendments, fair employment, equal opportunity. Yet the application of all of these laws, these policies, and divisions, these extra descriptors and labels for gender, preferences, beliefs, and sexuality, while legitimate in definition, are only a comfort to people who are lucky enough to not be marginalized by the same people that pushed for antidiscrimination policies that heralded those things to begin with.
A wise man once said, "Hatred begins with division." The moment you distinguish one person from another, you have already introduced the genesis of hatred and oppression.
For instance, Facebook recently had a whistleblower. Site shut down, Senate, etc. The claim is that Facebook is bad for youth and that they're committing suicide.
Well, when you think about it, a few years ago, it was 13 Reasons Why making people commit suicide. Why did it make people commit suicide? Show drew the hard line at a teenager not being able to talk about her problems. Facebook is well-known for silencing those people. I mean, the world changed a lot. The Trump Campaign saw an increase in suicides among men in the Armed Forces. It was significantly higher, and the statement from the Administration was that someone failed the men at arms.
Now, again, as a man, Big Tech causing people to commit suicide isn't new, the government turning a blind eye to that isn't partisan, and since Biden got into office, people have already claimed that they were metaphorically 'draining the lifeblood from children'.
What changed between the last administration to this administration besides a political party? Big Tech silenced conservatives, the sitting president of the last administration claimed that the election was a fraud, people stormed the capitol, and all liberal media outlets turned a blind eye to the conservative silence. That's well documented, and either side can claim what they want to, but the phenomenon of people committing suicide happened last administration, and it got worse. Now it's happening to kids, minors. Forget people being on the streets, the new world actually finds a way to ignore them dying before they graduate.
And the opposite opinion is also presentable: that they can't handle the reality we live in as the world goes faster and faster, as it changes. Globalism, networking, the internet, smart phones, accelerated education, increased stress and less demand in the job market. There are so many responsibilities now, people as they naturally are are unfit to adapt to the twenty-first century.
So is it favor? Is it hatred? Is it the changes in society today? Or is it a combination of those things? American society is literally handling the problem from the cradle.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4465426 times)