https://www.instagram.com/reel/DeovO52Az3A/?srtk=

source: https://nypost.com/2026/08/18/us-news/ex-florida-state-rep-charged-with-kidnapping-molesting-young-boy/

btw, its according to the child-victim that he peed. as a kid that young likely doesn't know what that really was.

This is more of a philosophy-adjacent question, but I think it is a legit question

I think there's a concept in contemporary philosophy called the Promethean shame in that people are increasingly becoming self-aware of just how much better the machines and artifacts that they've created really do and so thus perform better than them on average. It creates a mismatch of human priorities, I think, in the sense that for thousands of years we couldn't just be sitting down on the floor contemplating about the latest philosophical inquiry or imaginary ideas of the universe. Thus the work actually had to be put in. And I think the whole you have to "earn your living" thing might just be a sedative for the neuro-evolutionary hardwiring of "literally working hard to put food on the table"

But is struggle really the only thing incentivizing the average person here?

I ask because I really wonder if people are more existentially terrified of the existential rightmare of becoming permanently useless than having their needs ever met for sure.

Or have they made some other alternative concept for economic value?

I know dmitrov’s definition of fascism talks about finance capital, which to my knowledge the CSA lacked. That being said, don’t they meet every other criteria in the definition? The confederates certainly were reactionaries hell bent on violent expansionism, and as reconstruction shows they were not above terroristic vengeance as a means of trying to restore their way of life. Is there something I’m not getting here?

The students, workers, and people of the US are chained by the capitalist system of the state, and smacked in the face and told it is normal. Everything, down to their happiness is artificial and generated for control and obedience. Take a look at Albania, France, Spain, Iran, India, and Italy, some of the sheep of the herd finally stopped following their abusive shepards.

The US is described as a country built on revolution, yet all the revolutions I have seen have been in other regions, and has been described by the media of the west as mindless destruction and victimizes the police of all people. For being the country with the highest guns per capita, it seems none of it is put to any good use.

It is our right and responsibility as humans to dismantle the system which oppresses us, binds us, and tortures us. The so called “Greatest Country” is the greatest lie of our time, all propaganda to keep the people quiet and demonize the ones who are human, the ones who rise up.

Everyone must know of their own oppression, and everyone must fight against it.

Hello, I am a light fan of poetry, I don’t know too many poets but I like the works of Robert Service and I have also taken a light to a couple of Rudyard Kiplings poems. Just as a genuine question, I picked up a copy of his best poems in Waterstones, and the introduction states Rudyard Kipling was disliked by various anti imperialists and like-minded thinkers. I know this is a quick google search away, but out of my own naivety and intrigue of a response, does anybody have a say on Rudyard Kipling here and an argument either for or against his work and ideology?

In the eyes of “second amendment” dummies, this shooting was quite literally the ideal situation:

1. The gunman was witnessed by a “good guy with a gun” BEFORE he fired any shots.

2. The “good guy with a gun” was actually willing to risk his life and engage the gunman. Most “good guys with guns” would just run away.

3. The “good guy with a gun” was also apparently a competent marksman, and successfully neutralized the threat.

And despite all this — three people lay dead, and two more are in critical condition.

These were the IDEAL CONDITIONS to prevent violence, according to NRA nut jobs and gun-rights activists.

AND YET… three people lay dead, with two more clinging to life.

If even the “absolute ideal conditions to prevent violence” occurred, and three people STILL DIED…

…the only logical conclusion is that we need gun control.

Why I don't support socialism:

I. The Century of Rebranding: Warping the Word "Socialism" from Lenin to Today

The contemporary push for "democratic socialism" relies on semantic manipulation to bypass a population’s natural defenses against authoritarianism. Leftist movements have a long history of altering definitions and using labels as "skin suits", transforming the word "socialism" into a shifting political tool. [Marx & Engels] [Vladimir Lenin] [Modern Day: DSA / Progressives] Interchangeable terms ───> Socialism = Dictatorial Stage ───> Socialism = "Just a Safety Net" for stateless future. (State controls production). (Hides structural state takeover).

1. The Leninist Redefinition: Inventing the Stepping Stone

Before the Russian Revolution, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels used the terms "socialism" and "communism" largely interchangeably to describe a future post-capitalist society. However, when Vladimir Lenin wrote The State and Revolution in the summer of 1917, he fundamentally warped the language to justify seizing power in agrarian Russia. Lenin explicitly split the terms into a chronological sequence: • He claimed Socialism was a mandatory, lower phase of development. Under this phase, the state must act as a centralized, top-down "organisation of violence" to crush political dissent and control 100% of production. • He reserved Communism strictly for a hypothetical, distant future where the state would miraculously "wither away." By separating the two, Lenin created a powerful semantic shield: any brutal oppression, economic shortage, or lack of freedom under his regime was excused as merely the "necessary socialist transition stage," while the promised freedom of "pure communism" was pushed safely out of reach.

1. The Mid-Century Rebrand: Fleeing Totalitarian Reality

By the mid-20th century, Lenin’s "socialist transition stage" had produced the catastrophic real-world outcomes of the Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc, and Maoist China. Because the word "socialism" had become globally synonymous with labor camps, engineered famines, and secret police forces, the movement faced a severe marketing crisis. To regain support among democratic voters in the West, activists executed a second major rebrand. They severed the word from its bloody historical outcomes and attached democratic qualifiers, giving rise to terms like Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism. The strategy shifted from praising Soviet state control to pointing at capitalist European nations like Sweden or Denmark, claiming, "That is what we mean by socialism."

1. The Modern "Motte-and-Bailey" Playbook

Today, this intentional blurring of definitions manifests as a highly effective Motte-and-Bailey rhetorical strategy used by modern progressive networks: • The Bailey (The Radical Goal): In their official platforms and inner circles, organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) maintain the core Leninist blueprint: the systemic transformation of the economy, the complete abolition of the landlord-tenant relationship, and the collective or government takeover of private corporations. • The Motte (The Defensible Retreat): When confronted by economists or the public on how destructive and authoritarian a total state takeover is, they instantly retreat to a highly popular, mild position, claiming: “We just want public libraries, roads, and a healthcare system like Canada's. Are you saying libraries are evil?” By redefining essential economic goods—like housing and employment—as "human rights," they create an emotionally appealing platform designed to exploit real financial struggles. However, this framing deliberately omits the dangerous structural truth inherited from Lenin: if the state guarantees these rights, it must be granted absolute, coercive authority over the entire property and labor market to fulfill them.

II. The Illusion of Market-Based Alternatives: Tax and Rent Relief as Hidden State Control

When confronted with the failure of direct state monopolies, modern reformers often pivot to seemingly less aggressive interventions, such as offering targeted tax reliefs for developers or direct rent relief/vouchers for tenants. However, public choice economists point out that these mechanisms are merely decentralized forms of state control that introduce severe structural inefficiencies into the market. Whether the government is physically building tenements or artificially manipulating transactions with taxpayer cash, the core problem remains a top-down distortion of supply and demand: • The Distortion of Price Signals: When the government injects cash through rent relief or vouchers, it creates artificial demand without expanding the physical supply of housing. Landlords quickly realize that tenants have guaranteed government backing, which causes market rents to rise across the board. This effectively redistributes taxpayer money directly to property owners while pricing out middle-class families who do not qualify for the subsidies. • Picking Winners and Losers via Tax Relief: Offering tax breaks to developers who agree to build "affordable housing" requires a massive state apparatus to set arbitrary price caps, income thresholds, and compliance rules. This replaces the natural competition of the free market with bureaucratic favoritism. Instead of building what consumers actually want, developers build whatever satisfies the state's latest regulatory formula, resulting in misallocated resources and systemic inefficiency. • The Growth of Dependency: Once a state begins subsidizing a large portion of the population's rent or masking market prices with tax distortions, the private market becomes entirely dependent on the government's financial survival. The state gains immense regulatory leverage over private enterprises and citizens, meaning that even these "mild" interventions function as a stepping stone toward an all-powerful, centralized state.

III. The Practical Reality: Bureaucratic Bloat and the Death of Efficiency

Even if a government has zero intention of becoming a brutal dictatorship, handing billions of taxpayer dollars to a centralized authority to manage complex human needs is an awful, highly impractical idea. Free-market systems function efficiently because millions of decentralized individuals use price signals to communicate what society actually needs in real time. A government agency cannot possess or process this level of fluid information—a systemic roadblock known as the Knowledge Problem. Without market competition to enforce discipline, government management suffers from fatal structural flaws: • The Quadrant 4 Trap: As Milton Friedman observed, government bureaucrats are spending someone else’s money on someone else. Because they have no personal financial skin in the game, they have no natural incentive to minimize waste, cut costs, or maximize quality. • Perverse Incentives: In the private sector, inefficiency leads to bankruptcy. In the public sector, if a housing or job program fails and runs over budget, it is rewarded with more funding. This creates a loop of permanent bureaucratic bloat where a massive chunk of resources is swallowed up by administrative red tape, compliance officers, and political handouts before ever reaching the street.

IV. The Historical Precedent: The Failure of State Monopolies

We do not need to look at totalitarian regimes to see this failure; Western democracies have repeatedly proven that state-managed monopolies collapse under their own weight. Mid-20th-century public housing projects rapidly deteriorated into unsafe, high-crime disaster zones because of zero market accountability and rigid, top-down planning. Similarly, when the state attempts to guarantee artificial, government-created "make-work" jobs, it strips productivity from the economy, drives tax burdens to crushing heights, and ultimately suffocates the actual private-sector job creation required for society to prosper.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the promise of "democratic socialism" is a utopian trap. By warping definitions from Lenin's era to the modern day, it uses popular, morally unassailable concepts like "democracy" and "human rights" to pitch a system that destroys the competitive market. Whether that state control manifests as an overt dictatorial takeover, a slow slide into a wasteful bureaucracy, or an intricate web of distortionary tax and rent subsidies, the functional mechanism remains the same: a bloated, all-powerful state controlling your life with your own money.

Change my mind: