top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 93 points 11 months ago (17 children)

Yes.

They're hyperfocused on states rights. Fine. Here's the thing though - with rights come responsibilities. One can't claim the right to make one's own decisions, then dodge the responsibility for those decisions.

They.make their choices, they have to deal with the consequences themselves.

So they can grow the fuck up and join the modern world, or they can just wallow in their ignorance and incompetence. It's their problem - not ours.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 11 months ago (15 children)

    So instead of ignoring the fuckups of countries all over the world we are expected to ignore them here as well. Clearly ignoring the problem is not working.

    Seems like we are playing right into their hands and sacrificing our own citizens in the name of politics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 91 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    The mistake isn't ignoring the problem - it's subsidizing it.

    They're free to continue to be ignorant, short-sighted fuckups because we're there to bail their pathetic asses out.

    If we're going to bail them out, then that means we're taking responsibility, and if we're taking responsibility then they're going to sit the fuck down and shut the fick up and do as they're told, because obviously they can't take care of themselves.

    And if, on the other hand, they're going to do as they please, then it's not our responsibility - it's theirs. And if they can't bail themselves out of the trouble they've caused for themselves, that's their own fucking problem.

    It has to be one or the other. Authority without responsibility just creates moral hazard. Either they have the aurhority, in which case they also have the responsibility, or we have the responsibility, in which case we also have the authority.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Hmm, I like this approach. How about this though. When a state fucks up bad enough to need a federal bailout, and it has to be the states fault not something like a natural disaster unless the state itself either caused it or demonstrably failed to prepare for it (looking at you Texas power grid) then the federal government does the following.

    First they decide how much they're budgeting to fix the problem. Then the State needs to decide if they're going to provide a plan to keep that problem from happening again. If the state provides a plan then the federal subsidy payments are done in installments and those installments are conditional on implementing that plan. If however the state either refuses to make a plan or doesn't make one that's acceptable instead that money is put into a fund that people can claim some amount of to cover expenses for moving out of that state and into another one. This could potentially go all the way up to the cost of buying a house in a different state, although they then actually have to move out of their current state including selling any property in that state or else the money gets clawed back.

    This way the problem gets solved one way or another, either the state improves or else there are fewer people stuck in shitty states.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    Maybe, but on the plus side it's the ignorant, hateful citizens. Win-win.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    That is just pure propaganda. They are not anymore hateful than you or I. They have been led astray.

    I get it, othering is as appealing as it is toxic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    If they are still "astray" at this point, it's by choice. Fuck them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 11 months ago

    They love secession so much.

    They love Jesus so much.

    Let them have both.

  • source
  • [–] 47 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    Never surrender a square inch of territory to those scumbags. Those states are ruled by corrupt, anti-democracy elites, and the decent people there deserve a chance, not to be written off.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    The "decent" people in those states keep voting for this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I've got bad news: the oligarchs run the blue states as well. California gave us Palantir and X. Peter Thiel advocates for this exact same thing for fuck sake.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 17 points 11 months ago

    This is exactly what the billionaires buying up all this farmland want. Cut the red states loose, then Amazon/Microsoft/Alphabet/etc sweep in and establish company towns nations.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Of course we all know that Republicans have no concern for human life unless it's an embryo.

    This is not really true. Republicans do not really care about embryos any more than they care about the pro-life flags their voters fly. Like the flags, the embryo is just a symbol, a tool to be abandoned as soon as it has served its political purpose.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    I agree sell them off to Mexico if were going to run the US like a business let's run it like private equity. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Presumably it would actually be worth it for them.

    They would provide Mexican level services to the new Mexicans which is presumably lower than the current services they receive suckling at the teat of the federal government.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago

    Pure psychopath shit.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago

    Article author doesn't actually elaborate on what they mean precisely by "cut them loose" but from context it seems to be cut off all their federal funding.

    Not even sure how you'd do that to be honest - even Trump's admin has struggled to legally withhold federal funds from states he hates, the funding gets pushed through in the end by legal action. So you wanna out-crime Trump? Dumb article.

    If the author wants to make bold demands then along with that comes the requirement of suggesting how to achieve them, else it's just performative whining.

  • source
  • [–] 52 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

    Secessionists are dangerous and malicious

    This is simply what the red states want and it will not improve your lives but leave us with highly dangerous neighbors and a completely destroyed society

    Do not fall for this shit

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago

    No. They're part of our country, and the only reason that they're "dead weight" is that the GOP lied to and propagandized their citizens for long enough to extract essentially all the capital out of the land and the people. Now they don't have enough to keep going on their own, and they're only as good to the Republicans as their electoral votes.

    We have to keep them—that was part of the deal from the beginning, and it's the right thing to do—but we have to fight back against the propaganda so that the citizens can see what they could be without the GOP.

  • source
  • [–] 69 points 11 months ago (19 children)

    So. NO. This is what we are fighting against. We need to make a society where everyone can be included, happy, heallthy, and free. Not just exclude those we don't currently agree with.

    Many of these hard core MAGA people are like super fans of a sports team. They are looking for something to identify as and a group to be part of. Give them better options and they wouldn't exist.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    The problem is that you can't separate most of MAGA from the hate. If a black person in Mississippi benefits from a federal state service, that cannot be tolerated, even if many whites benefit as well.

    It's more important to protect a non-viable embryo, according to these people, than to protect the mother's life or health.

    I feel like King Theoden from LotR, who says "What can men do against such reckless hate?" Though, it's valid to substitute "hatred" with "stupidity"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    There are several sets of people involved. First you have the ambitious. These are poloticians and such that probably aren't really racist at the core, but are willing to act and be racist to get ahead. They are the real problem. But it isn't hate that drives them. It's ambition. For the people suffering, that doesn't matter. But when it comes to solving the problem it does.

    Then you have the people who are actually racist, hateful people. They do exist, but they are actually a very small minority. The rest are "followers". They weren't racist until someone convinced them to be. These are the people you can give better options to. Doing so errodes the power of the other two groups.

    These followers aren't being told black and white. They are be told lazy, or criminal. And when the ambitious people shut services, they don't mention the "good" people who benefit, they only mention the bad people. So often followers don't even know who is really losing out. The news is full of trump supporters who are unhappy that a local to them person they knew got picked up by ICE. That's because they believed the propaganda that it would only be violent illegal immigrants and such. Some were just fooled. But a lot just idolize trump because he filled a place in thier life that was empty. Give them something better, and they won't idolize him. And idolization causes a lot of people to believe illogical things.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    Nope, fuck maga. i have no sympathy for nazis. they want to hate everything and everyone, let them be miserable in their little hate worlds.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    There are several sets of people involved. First you have the ambitious. These are politicians and such that probably aren't really racist at the core, but are willing to act and be racist to get ahead. They are the real problem. But it isn't hate that drives them. It's ambition. For the people suffering, that doesn't matter. But when it comes to solving the problem it does.

    Then you have the people who are actually racist, hateful people. They do exist, but they are actually a very small minority. The rest are "followers". They weren't racist until someone convinced them to be. These are the people you can give better options to. Doing so errodes the power of the other two groups.

    I have no sympathy for the two groups that aren't the followers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -1 points 11 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 21 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    i do realize that and it weighs on me, and i hate it, but i refuse to tolerate intolerance.

    I am fully willing to have rational conversations with maga, but after trying 100s of times and making no progress, i see no reason to continue with the olive branch. i would have better luck teaching my dog mandrin, than making maga see reason or have empathy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    Historically, the mongers of violence and war have only been ended by stronger violence and better war strategies and resources. The whole take the higher road and tolerance thing is what got America into this current mess in the first place. These assholes are cowards and only come out when there are no consequences, but go back into hiding when there are.

    People should not be punched in the nose for their race, religion, sexuality, gender, etc., basically who they are. People should be punched in the noise for being assholes, their bad behaviour.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    There are several sets of people involved. First you have the ambitious. These are poloticians and such that probably aren't really racist at the core, but are willing to act and be racist to get ahead. They are the real problem. But it isn't hate that drives them. It's ambition. For the people suffering, that doesn't matter. But when it comes to solving the problem it does.

    Then you have the people who are actually racist, hateful people. They do exist, but they are actually a very small minority. The rest are "followers". They weren't racist until someone convinced them to be. These are the people you can give better options to. Doing so errodes the power of the other two groups.

    But where we are now... I feel like you might be right about a need for responding in kind. But, while doing so, remembering that overall, the follower group is not an enemy that should be eradicated, but one that showed be turned to a better side. So it's kind of like making sure you don't box them in and give them no way out but to fight. You need the followers to join you while you overpower the other two groups. And after, you need to make sure the followers have better options so that they don't join up with the next popularist to appear.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Ah, the age-old dilemma: is it morally sound and/or necessary to dehumanize dehumanizers?

    And if we're honest, isn't dehumanizing people a very human trait?

    Or put my favorite way: "No one hates like family."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Give them better options and they wouldn't exist.

    Straight up bullshit. They've been given better options over and over. They are small, hateful people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    There are several sets of people involved. First you have the ambitious. These are poloticians and such that probably aren't really racist at the core, but are willing to act and be racist to get ahead. They are the real problem. But it isn't hate that drives them. It's ambition. For the people suffering, that doesn't matter. But when it comes to solving the problem it does.

    Then you have the people who are actually racist, hateful people. They do exist, but they are actually a very small minority. The rest are "followers". They weren't racist until someone convinced them to be. These are the people you can give better options to. Doing so errodes the power of the other two groups.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    They do exist, but they are actually a very small minority. The rest are “followers”. They weren’t racist until someone convinced them to be.

    far too apologetic of racists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    I would never forgive this country if it abandoned me.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 11 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    but also… they’re arguing for small government. maybe y’all should start pushing in the same direction: make the federal government smaller, keep your blue state tax money, stop giving them as much… it’s what they want after all

    and then use that money to form blue state coalitions: form a new, voluntary CDC, FDA, etc between aligned states that are far more robust than what you’ve been able to achieve with republican bad faith tampering

    kinda like the EU model, but less central

    (and if you didn’t see my instance, i’m aussie so i don’t really get a say, and nobody should let me influence anything - im not a citizen and i don’t live there or have to deal with as many consequences - unless you legitimately agree)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    i think it’s certainly possible that it could start down that path, and it’ll become blatantly obvious that trickle down economics, “socialism is evil”, anti-intellectual crap that the red states bow at the alter of is a huge reason for their suffering and they’ll want to join those coalitions, but those coalitions will have years if not decades of policy on their side to make sure they aren’t overrun with the same ideas

    could the process then just start over again? perhaps… it could just be a property of the system

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    As someone who lived in Texas for a decade, I was fully prepared for the US to abandon me after we voted in Greg Abbott again. Gubnatorial elections are popular vote elections not affected by Gerrymandering. We didn't even have THAT excuse.

    That being said, I always said that the rest of the US should cut off everything Oklahome going South and Texas going East as long as they offered a refugee program for those of us not batshit insane.

    The only thing that would suck would be leaving behind the kiddos who dont have a say in where their crazy ass parents choose to live.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 11 months ago* (3 children)

    The dumbest most neoliberal take ever. Maybe poor people deserve it?

    Actually I take it back, dude is probably a white supremacist.

    Christopher Armitage @chrisarmitage1 Most tell you what's wrong. I try to tell you what works. Researcher, Former Law Enforcement Officer, Veteran, Author. Living in Spokane, Washington 🌲🌲🌲 with 3 feline roommates

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago

    I don't know about denying red states funding, but I do know that I'm sick and fucking tired of my taxes paying for these assholes who then turn around and refuse to release funds that have already been approved to my state as some sort of punishment for being blue.

    Nah, fuck that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    Is... there any precedent or process for... un-granting statehood, and returning it to being a territory?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    As someone who can't stop playing EUV: oh yes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Hah!

    I never got into EU or HOI (beyond just watching youtubers paint maps, with commentary), but I have definitely had moments in Stellaris when I realized:

    Fuck, this other empire doesn't like me and is going to out economy me in a few years, if I don't overhaul my own entire economy.

    So then I sit down and rework the whole uh, sector type governance structure, re-specialize various planetary economies... and that does essentially mean that some systems that used to be their own sector or the functional regional capitol, well, now they're smaller fish in a reorganizrd, bigger pond.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (3 children)

    I'll have to try Stellaris again. I didn't really play it a ton, so I never really wrapped my brain around it.

    EUV has been really fun. A lot more fun than I've had in previous Paradox grand strategy games. It's also somehow both more complex and more accessible than EUIV.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Well, I have a love hate/relationship with Paradox.

    On the one hand, they make basically perfect games for autists, such as myself.

    On the other hand, their business model is fucking atrocious.

    Oh, you want to play the modern version of the game? Well, now it costs 3 or 4 times as much, with all the DLC you'll either need, or be tempted to buy.

    So... as much as I enjoyed Stellaris, I'd honestly have to recommend you not try it, unless you've got a few hundred dollars that you're ok with evaporating.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago

    Would be useful if those fed dollars the author is decrying was much more than military jobs and general entitlements like ag grants, Medicaid, and SNAP. Like yeah, their legislators don't care about those folks either. But we ain't exactly pulling a TVA anymore here so playing like neolib Clinton era bare minimum spending on poverty is a grand handout is pretty silly. For the most part nobody in the South or the Rust belt has gotten shit post NAFTA. The new deal has been dead for a long time but we're sure they owe us for managing poverty.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago*

    Cut them loose and trail of tears every republican voter out of the blue states to live in their own backwards pedofile supporting cesspool

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    I've said it before, but we need to start shutting down all these miniscule towns that have no reason for existing. They are nothing but an economic and social drain on the country.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Kick someone out of their home because they aren’t profitable enough wtf?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    Hey, if they want to stay when the water, electric, sewage, roads, fire department, police, and all other publicly subsidized services are removed they are welcome to it. We all shouldn't have to pay because a handful of people can't adjust to the century they live in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Uoj going to pay for my housing? How will your state handle the refugee crisis?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago*

    It would be more economical to pay for people to relocate and train them for new jobs. There's plenty of room in cities and suburbs for the displaced. To be clear, I'm not talking about getting rid of towns of 5000; I'm talking about towns of a population of 500 or less.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Cut the Failed Red States Loose

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    I don't know why they gotta show that photo. I see opportunity there. A good neighborhood is one where I can take my welder and grinder to the backyard and do whatever the whole day and nobody is bothered by the noise. Not that they accept the noise but that they live far enough from me to not hear or be bothered by the noise. If you can do that, that's a good engineering neighborhood.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    Disagree. A better neighborhood would have much denser, often multi family housing. But provide actual proper workshop spaces for that sort of thing so not to disturb the neighborhood. Suburbia and exurbia are two of the most corrosive societal forces.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    Disagree. Different people like different things. Both high density and low density should exist. The goal should be happy people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Agreed. I lived in a small town and hated it. I need the buzz of a city, the opportunities, always things happening.

    Also, in a big city you can find groups of people to fit with your identity however niche you are. In a small town it's the opposite, you have to adapt yourself to them to fit in, they are very monocultural. I can't do that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (5 children)

    I don't disagree. It's just that suburbia can't continue to exist. If you can dig your own well and are going to provide your own power, et cetera, more power to you. Bua lot of places like that. Where there's little opportunity, and far too much resources invested in minimally used infrastructure. Are unsustainable as they currently exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    But nobody you was talking about suburbia. The guy above was discussing rural living, not suburban

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

    Exurbia, I didn't repeat the term and that tripped you up. Suburbia, exurbia/rural areas especially. Where you have to run miles of wire or pipe to service three or four people. Completely unsustainable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    Miles of wire is easy and low maintenance. Miles of pipes doesn't make sense, but water is also not hard to localize. Miles of stroads is what defines suburbia. A rural highway with a driveway every 2-3 miles defines rural living and it's perfectly sustainable. It would be better if the rural hubs were connected to cities via railroads, like they used to be, but still they aren't too bad as is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    I live near some of these areas. The seat of the county I am in is largely one of those areas. My uncle lived directly in it. Both were massive issues. And a significant portion of county resources go to trying to maintain it. Conversely our area being much more urban and closer ties to the nearby city gets very little in the way of county funds or assistance. If it wasn't for the end of the county near the city, the county overall would much more resemble something like West Virginia. You go much farther north, the roads all became two lanesat most. And you have to dodge horse apples and the carts of menonites. Which isn't a dig at the menonites. They're actually self-sufficient and don't get much help from the county either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    The source of your claim it is unsustainable is that it takes more resources than they can get because of politics. Not because the resources aren't available. If you have roads, everything else can be localized. Solar, wind geothermal, water power, plus batteries can be very local. Internet via satellite. Water is actually not too hard to come by for residental use. Food can be a bit challenging in some places, but the roads can bring it in.
    It is all sustainable just fine if we want it to be and stop optimizing for cost.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    I fact checked the ratios of federal spending to federal tax receipts, for the three states mentioned in the substack. https://smartasset.com/data-studies/states-most-dependent-on-the-federal-government-2022

    Could I have help with more fact checking? The reasoning is sound, but I've been burnt before by poorly sourced opinion pieces

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›