In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
i just love how the implication behind that is we couldn't even fake ballots on our own and we're so incompetent we'd need to get fake ballots from china
It's funny the tweets of randoms are of utmost importance to Lucy and his pals, but US president's ones are ok.
Libertarians are famously only concerned about the actions and speech of private citizens, they always give government a pass.
Now, do I think my local university should retain staff that advocates for the destruction of the state. No, I do not. Do I think the government should pursue action? Unless he / she is recruiting a terrorist cell or some similar actions, no I do not. In fact, I think government should mostly stay the hell away from matters of speech and expression.
*gasp* "But T_D", some say, "couldn't free thinking foster radical and dangerous ideas?" Congratulations imaginary facsimile, you just discovered that free speech can be dangerous and does not always go where you want it to go. Thousands of despots have learned this lesson in the past, and hopefully at some point all of them will have learned it. Now, maybe we use it to burn our own house down before we get to that point, but that's the nature of dangerous things.
Libertarians are famously only concerned about the actions and speech of private citizens, they always give government a pass. Now, do I think my local university should retain staff that advocates for the destruction of the state. No, I do not. Do I think the government should pursue action? Unless he / she is recruiting a terrorist cell or some similar actions, no I do not.
I don't understand why you fail to address the fact that the state is *subsidizing those institutions*.
Ofc the state should stay the hell away from speech , if that person were just saying what it is saying without being subsidized by taxpayers to do so.
All we are asking is for the state to stop subsidizing bad people.
Bad, horrible people have a right to exist and express themselves (up until they wage violence upon others or their property, or make plans to do so), but subsidizing them is suicidal.
Rightwing people are happier than leftists, and that stays true no matter age, religion and other controls
Now as for mental health, which also is measurably dramatically worse for leftists, the very important question is about causality, and i don't think we have a definitive answer for it (yet). But we can try to guess from the numbers available.
It is unclear whether being a leftist makes you inner life much more miserable, or if it's people with a more miserable inner life than are drawn to leftism.
People with high interests in politics and current news seem happier in general , both liberals and conservatives, so from that alone it should be the latter (ie miserable people are drawn to leftism, it isn't leftism that causes them to be miserable; if the cause was leftism making people miserable, more politically active leftists would feel worse than the rest, which isn't the case).
That should make sense i guess. If you struggle in life , are low agency, and have a contorted inner life that makes you sad, it's normal i suppose to be drawn to a set of ideologies that confirms your low agency is someone else fault and you are a victim of third party oppression.
But anyway the gap is so massive, it's like being a liberal is being a different kind of human being (a sadder, more miserable one) than the rest of the population. Unfortunately though if the causality runs as per above it's not enough to stop being a liberal to fix yourself.
Another curios note from the above number is how little being married makes a difference these days. I am pretty sure older literature had substantive claims about marriage making people happier. Maybe these days the selection effect of marriage is very different.
No Harvard should be free to hire whomever, problem is public money shouldn't subsidize those people.
Free speech doesn't entail free subsidies
Well u can’t have it both way .
some speech a certain government would feel ok with it and other government wouldn’t feel ok with it .
So in Essence u deny free speech .
U pay teacher to teach and shouldn’t care about her opinion on every subject she might share on social media or w.e .
But fascist love that stuff ….
AI
Fascist regimes typically utilize propaganda and censorship to control public discourse and consolidate power. This involves manipulating information, suppressing dissenting voices, and promoting a specific ideology to shape public opinion and behavior.
Propaganda: Fascist regimes employ propaganda to create a specific image of the state and its leadership, often emphasizing nationalism, unity, and strength. This can involve using media, education, and public events to promote their ideology and demonize their opponents. For example, in Nazi Germany, propaganda was used to promote antisemitism and justify the persecution of Jews.
Control of Information: Fascist regimes also use censorship to control the flow of information and prevent the spread of ideas that challenge their authority. This can involve banning books, restricting access to media, and controlling the content of educational materials. By controlling what people see, hear, and read, fascist regimes can limit the public's access to alternative perspectives and maintain their grip on power.
Consequences: The combination of propaganda and censorship allows fascist regimes to create a climate of fear and conformity, where dissent is discouraged and critical thinking is suppressed. This can lead to a society where people are afraid to speak out against the government and where the regime's ideology is widely accepted, even if it is based on misinformation and lies.
Hi Luciom !
You won't find many people with clinical depression out there at rallies shouting, "MURICA! **** YEA!".
Seems more likely that people who struggle with their own demons are more likely to latch on to a political ideology that demands other people solve all your personal problems.
Of course, the lefties would suggest that depression is linked with higher intellect and general enlightenment. Ignorance is bliss.
You won't find many people with clinical depression out there at rallies shouting, "MURICA! **** YEA!". Seems more likely that people who struggle with their own demons are more likely to latch on to a political ideology that demands other people solve all your personal problems.Of course, the lefties would suggest that depression is linked with higher intellect and general e
Let's categorise being an adult who believes in fairy tales as the psychosis that it is, and see how that affects the mental health numbers.
Speaking of which, Inso0, do you prefer my vesrion of the ark story where the elephants had wings or just the regular dull wingless one? I think mine adds a certain je ne sais quoi.
If ignorance is bliss, we should take a closer look at that conservatives = happier metric.
Pretty much what I was thinking lol.
Idiots have a hard grasp of acknowledging what really going around them and a bit in the future .
If ignorance is bliss, we should take a closer look at that conservatives = happier metric.
Why does it stays even in the same educational bracket or income bracket then?
Conservatives with PhDs are far happier than liberals with PhDs.
And for both sides having more education = being happier. So the opposite of "ignorance is bliss".
Unfortunately for you, conservatives are just better , mentally healthier, saner ahd happier people, measurably. In some very real sense, the measurable best part of society.
Let's categorise being an adult who believes in fairy tales as the psychosis that it is, and see how that affects the mental health numbers.
Speaking of which, Inso0, do you prefer my vesrion of the ark story where the elephants had wings or just the regular dull wingless one? I think mine adds a certain je ne sais quoi.
If believing GMO are cancerogenic , and similar takes, count as fairy tales as well sure.
I mean how many liberals believe that the theory of evolution is real, and it applies to all living beings and their organs as well, EXCEPT to human brains in the last 100k years?
Pretty much what I was thinking lol.
Idiots have a hard grasp of acknowledging what really going around them and a bit in the future .
Yes you and gorgo cannot understand a simple table with very clear numbers, we know.
Otherwise you wouldn't claim this when answering data that shows how more educated people are happier, both liberals and conservatives.
If believing GMO are cancerogenic, and similar takes, count as fairy tales as well sure.
I mean how many liberals believe that the theory of evolution is real, and it applies to all living beings and their organs as well, EXCEPT to human brains in the last 100k years?
Swing and a miss, champ. Merely believing something factually incorrect would render every single human on the planet mentally ill. I'm talking believing Harry Potter is a real wizard and Hogwarts is a real place level of psychosis.
Luciom thinks having a PhD in literally anything means you can't be ignorant of current events or politics. Truly a wondrous world he lives in.
But the funniest thing about Luciom's latest failure is I wasn't even being serious with my "claim." It was a &(*@#$ joke. Hysterical that his ego couldn't stand it and he had to try to refute it and went overboard with delusions of grandeur in the process.
Good lord.
Swing and a miss, champ. Merely believing something factually incorrect would render every single human on the planet mentally ill. I'm talking believing Harry Potter is a real wizard and Hogwarts is a real place level of pychosis.
No it's not just something factually incorrect. It's something totally made up to justify other beliefs, even in the face of absolute proof of the contrary.
Believing the human brain isn't affected by evolution in the last 100k years is like antivaxing.
Btw even with your stricter definition, astrology would qualify, and guess who believes in astrology the most?
No it's not just something factually incorrect. It's something totally made up to justify other beliefs, even in the face of absolute proof of the contrary.Believing the human brain isn't affected by evolution in the last 100k years is like antivaxing.Btw even with your stricter definition, astrology would qualify, and guess who believes in astrology the most?
Fine. Let's add talking to imaginary sky friends that you think are real and asking them to intervene in your life to make it better then. If you can find me a parallel that liberals do more for that, I'm all for classifying them as cuckoo for cocoa puffs as well.
Btw, no idea with where you are going with the human brain being unaffected by evolution stuff, this isn't' something I've heard about.
Fine. Let's add talking to imaginary sky friends that you think are real and asking them to intervene in your life to make it better then. If you can find me a parallel that liberals do more for that, I'm all for classifying them as cuckoo for cocoa puffs as well.
You never heard liberals denying that in the last 100k years the human brain has kept evolving, which means that different ethnicities must have genetically different brains and so behavioural attitudes (all behavioural attitudes have provenly a genetic component) and intelligence (which provenly has a genetic component), *necessarily*, if evolution is true?
, which means that different ethnicities must have genetically different brains and so behavioural attitudes (all behavioural attitudes have provenly a genetic component) and intelligence (which provenly has a genetic component), *necessarily*, if evolution is true?
Translation: "blAcK pEOplE arEN'T As SmaRt aS wHiTE pEoPLe!"
You never heard liberals denying that in the last 100k years the human brain has kept evolving, which means that different ethnicities must have genetically different brains and so behavioural attitudes (all behavioural attitudes have provenly a genetic component) and intelligence (which provenly has a genetic component), *necessarily*, if evolution is true?
No, I have not heard this, nor do I fully understand the claim from the word salad above, but I think I get the general gist. In any case, you're taking some extremist leftist beliefs, and I mean sure, there are nutcases everywhere, and trying to compare them with a mainstream right belief (young earth creationism). It's just not apples to apples.
No, I have not heard this, nor do I fully understand the claim from the word salad above, but I think I get the general gist. In any case, you're taking some extremist leftist beliefs, and I mean sure, there are nutcases everywhere, and trying to compare them with a mainstream right belief (young earth creationism). It's just not apples to apples.
Of course you haven't heard this. You would only encounter these types of discussions if you were desperately clinging to your belief that there is a genetic justification for your racism.
No, I have not heard this, nor do I fully understand the claim from the word salad above, but I think I get the general gist. In any case, you're taking some extremist leftist beliefs, and I mean sure, there are nutcases everywhere, and trying to compare them with a mainstream right belief (young earth creationism). It's just not apples to apples.
Typical liberals deny there are functional genetic brain differences among human ethnicities.
