Political rants

I believe a country is only as good as it's people, regardless of how it operates. Of the nearly 27 years I have lived here like %80 of people I have met or have come across are awful with no or very few redeemable qualities and have absolutely zero intention of improving themselves. The other people aren't even that great and like maybe %5 are decent human beings who just kinda suffer quietly. As far as I'm concerned this country is screwed by the simple fact that completely degenerate people are increasingly outnumbering any halfway decent people over time. I believe it will implode eventually even without any outside interference. An example I can use is from my own personal experience. I had a no show father and an abusive and neglectful mother and a bully of an older half brother. I was bullied and outcast-ed by everyone in school as well. Eventually it got so bad the police were called and and was taken away to a group home. The group homes I was sent to held 10 kids, there were at least 100 houses run in that particular system each with the same number of kids. Most (like%90) of the kids sent to these homes weren't orphans and were there because of similar reasons. Their parents either couldn't afford them, were drug addicts or alcoholics, or abusive or neglectful. // Side note I also met a couple who were on their 5th kid and they were like "oh we can keep this one this time hehe" The other ones they sent to homes because they couldn't take care of them or some shit bastards -_-// Basically as far as I can tell each generation is getting worse and more screwed over because of previous generations mistakes but also because no one knows how to be a goddamn parent. I personally wouldn't want to raise my kids here and if there was a better option and I had the opportunity to leave I would do it in a heartbeat.

@umi_nezumi they spoke out against slavery and yet they owned slaves. that is far different than someone that speaks out against child slavery but owns an iPhone. there are degrees of removal that change the severity of the hypocrisy. its like the meme "you decry society and yet live in one, curious!" @hell_hound7 reminder that freedom is speech only protects the freedom to question and criticise your government. you have 0 speech protections on social media, because they're run by companies with shareholders they have to appease. cancel culture is double-sided. it can absolutely be toxic, i don't think people should lose their jobs because of their opinions unless theyr doing it on a company account. at the same time though, if you play stupid games, you get stupid prizes. you call someone the n word, you deserve to be called out for it, that is their freedom of speech. the me too movement has been deemed 'cancel culture' but it ousted horrific people, like bill cosby and Weinstein. biden isn't more racist than trump was. biden gave a passionate speech decrying the apartheid in Africa. if you mean the crime bill, crime was at an all time high in the 90s, and that seemed like the best option at the time. trump on the other hand had a long history of discriminating against black tenants.

Honestly I don't care for either Trump or Biden. The impression I've formed of Biden though is that he's just a sheep, and I'm uneasy for a whole different reason than when Trump took office.

@umi_nezumi but did they? there were three founding fathers that didn't own slaves. cant you say that its worse to acknowledge the horrors of slavery and still engage in it? to be free of the cognitive dissidence many had regarding African Americans, and to see that these are actual people? your implying necessary evils, which is something i agree to. I'm a capitalist, i have to. harm reduction =/= ethicality though. you still have to acknowledge that what they did, though for the benefit of the argument can be considered necessary, was evil. that these people engaged in acts that they knew were evil. what if i decried the evils of animal abuse but owned a puppy mill? can i be forgiven because i need the money to live? no, i would still be a hypocrite and the fact that i harmed dogs would still be an atrocity. bad people can do good things, but that doesnt mean you can or should overlook that bad.

@umi_nezumi how exactly was the analogy faulty? it was exactly what the founding fathers did, no? exchange puppy mill for plantation and animal abuse for human rights and its a 1 for 1 i think, though its simplistic. you have yet to substanciate that they truly needed the slaves to imply they could have remained passive is to assume they didn't have any choice. why was George Washington the only one to free his slaves upon his death? and even then, he still used legal loopholes to keep his slaves while northern states were abolishing it. can you provide me with a reason why they couldn't hire regular workers? why slavery was the only way that these hyper wealthy individuals could prosper? not to mention, owning slaves was a luxury. slaves were expensive. there were planations that didn't incorporate slave labor. i believe that there is nuance to every human. there is no true evil, and no single human is evil (i used evil as a synonym for bad earlier). no single person is wholly good, either. bad people can do helpful things, and good people can do horrible things. mike tyson loved animals and cared for pigeons, but he also beat up women. people are the sum of their actions, but that doesn't negate other actions as well. sorry if that still isn't clear, i can have trouble articulating my thoughts sometimes.

in my view, it was one exploitative, unethical means of income to another. someone is profiting off of the misery of a sentient creature. and again, i rebuff the idea that the founding fathers needed slaves to make a living. they were the wealthiest of the wealthy. george Washington was one of the richest men in America at the time. owning slaves was a luxury. this is just a historical fact. why would they be criticized for practicing what they preached? i agree that slavery was probably a necessary evil for our developing nation, but i don't think we should look at our founding fathers with any kind of sympathy. they were not men of their era, their opinions on human rights were ahead of their time. they were not victims of cognitive dissonance. they actively worked in an effort to keep their slaves. and i have to say again, you have yet to give me a reason why these elitists needed their slaves. i think this is the crux of your argument and you have yet to substantiate it. my rebuke that they needed them is that (as i reiterated at an obnoxious rate most likely) they were so rich that they would still be wealthy if they hired actual workers or paid their slaves a living wage. i don't even need to get into the raping of the slaves, btw. what the founding fathers accomplished was legendary, but we should still keep in mind that these men were deeply flawed hypocrites, and are not at all moral arbitors.

@turtwigz I feel like we're having an actual debate here. Could you kindly refrain from shallow jabs? I don't endorse these actions of the past, but the fact of the matter is that it was the norm then and to evaluate the past you have to view it from their perspective.

Sorry. I just opened up the website and it's the first thing I saw and found funny. I haven't read what you've previously said other than that so I'm not going to say anything more. You can just ignore it