ArchRecord

Who could have guessed a significant portion of the population wouldn’t magically find their attraction to people exclusively split along a very specific line of biological and social characteristics in over 99% of cases? What a shocking revelation that maybe a lot of people just like who they like regardless of gender or sex.

Personally, I expect to see this number of people outwardly identifying as bi significantly rise as time goes on.

Quick everyone, start talking about high speed rail!

Maybe we have the slightest shot of actually building out, y’know, cheap, fast, effective mass transit for once?

Buy overpriced ugly truck from an outward Nazi

Cover it in shiny gold wrap to draw even more attention and be obnoxious to anyone who doesn’t want to be blinded on the road

Be surprised when people don’t like you

???

Some landlords that are complete assholes ask, but I doubt you’ll actually see anybody actually do it.

They literally do this on a schedule every year, this isn’t any different than what they did last year, or the year before that, when there wasn’t any of this conflict.

This is the danger of elite projection. What his life is like must be how other people’s lives are like.

He was successful. If he wanted to get a job, he could. If he did work, he got paid.

If these people aren’t doing that, it must be their fault, and they need “treatment” (via institutionalization) in his mind. It couldn’t possibly be because to get a job, you often need existing housing, but to get housing, you need money from a job. Or the fact that people like him don’t pay enough.

It’s always their fault. Individual responsibility, meritocracy and all that jazz.

You can bet that on day one he’ll claim NASA is less efficient than SpaceX, and therefore their budget should be directed to his company instead.

For anyone not aware, the entire breach has been published by DDOSecrets and can be torrented by anyone.

For research and journalism purposes, of course.

particularly military-age men

And give China more people to wage war against America with? Sounds like a great plan! (/s obviously)

The problem is that welfare systems, such as those that provide housing, that distinguish who is eligible by how much they can afford it, to a certain degree, inevitably depress higher levels of economic activity, and good saving behavior, through the very nature by which they’re operated.

If we say that someone is no longer eligible for free housing if they earn, say, $2,000+ a month, and housing would otherwise cost $500 a month, then if they’re currently earning $1,500 a month (the same they’d effectively have if they had to pay $500 a month for housing on a $2,000 a month salary) they have a direct incentive to not make over $2,000, unless they can guarantee they’ll make at least that much plus $500 more to compensate for the difference. If they earned $1,800 a month, they’d be making $300 more than someone making $2,000, but paying $500 a month for housing after hitting the cutoff.

This isn’t just a hypothetical either. While this 2021 study does mention some benefits of means testing, such as more targeted expenditure, it ultimately shows that…

“An asset means-test incentivizes low-income households to hold few financial assets making them vulnerable to predictable and unpredictable income changes.”

…and sees that, in the end, while it can marginally increase the cost of these social programs to the taxpayer, it ultimately does more to benefit the individuals receiving the assistance.

Or how about this research done by the Cleveland branch of the Federal Reserve that states:

“the elimination of testing limits, such as in policies similar to a UBI, could present a welfare-improving alternative to the current system, though not without large economic trade-offs.” (They effectively mean worse targeting of funds, but better overall results)

Means-testing directly reduces the incentives that lead to higher overall household wealth, and quality of life.

Not having means-testing increases total income, which also means increased tax revenue. That same tax revenue can then go to funding the housing system as a whole, but it won’t directly, substantively punish people for an increase in income past an arbitrary threshold.

Not to mention the increased administrative cost of performing means testing, as opposed to doing unconditional support, which could reduce the amount of money actually going to funding housing, in favor of funding jobs for people that audit income levels of housing applicants.

Anything we humans need for fundamental existence in today’s society should be free to the individual, and be a cost we all pay as a society to respect the existence of other human beings. Anything above that is up to the individual to either provide for themselves, or receive as a result of the value they contribute to society through labor.

That’s my broader belief system, and thus, housing falls under that for me. The better we meet individual’s needs, the easier it becomes for them to contribute back to society, and experience upward class mobility.

I believe that if we are to make housing a right, we can’t even just say it’s a right “unless you have no job,” or “unless you’re unable to fork over $500 a month,” because employment is ultimately up to the discretion of employers, who, even today, don’t even consider most unhoused people for jobs, because they don’t have stable housing, but to get stable housing, those people need jobs. (this even applies to many shelters, which will require unhoused people to either be employed, or be constantly seeking employment)

We know that adding hoops to jump through to get welfare assistance only harms those who need to depend on it the most, without providing any significant socioeconomic benefit, so why should we apply that same logic to housing, if we determine that it should be a right of all human beings?

I’m not saying the housing has to be great. It doesn’t need to be spacious, have all the amenities, or even have things like good quality lighting or good soundproofing from adjacent housing units, but at a bare minimum, everyone deserves somewhere to live.

Your daily reminder that basic housing should be absolutely zero fucking dollars because housing should be a human right, and anything above 0% should be criminal.

About time.

For reference, visa charges about 1.5%-3.5% on everything.

Oh, plus ten cents for every transaction, because fuck you, that’s why.

“At the suggestion of Elon Musk […] I will create a government efficiency commission tasked with conducting a complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government” -Donald Trump

[Trump noted] the task force would be responsible for “making recommendations for drastic reforms” to the government.

The fact that this man doesn’t understand that our entire system of checks and balances is what makes recommendations (and implements) drastic reforms, just shows how much of a fascist he is.

Adding Musk to his own special “task force” meant to “recommend” changes, which would, in reality, just be another avenue of control, is a clear attempt to centralize power.

TLDR; “weak people have to conform to social consensus otherwise they get hurt I guess?”

I, on the other hand, am a big, strong, high T alpha male, that isn’t worried about what anyone thinks! I am a free thinker, and I know my opinions are correct because I instantly based this entire opinion on a subjective, anecdotal view of the world that I then extrapolated meaning out of, the best evidence! /s

You get what you pay for.

It’s because they’ve conditioned their audience to believe a few key things:

1. “Voting” with your wallet is what matters over all other forms of action.
2. Giving money to “woke” companies harms you as an individual.
3. Buying products is the best way to signal your value as a person.

Let’s break that down.

They want money to be more important than voting, because they understand that their political demographic does not win the popular vote in most cases, and their policies are inherently not popular with the majority. But when they can get money instead, then use that to influence votes and policy, well, that just might get them the policies they want without substantial votes from the public.

They want people to fear giving money to “woke” corporations because it makes them seem like the only source of real truth, and objectivity. They’re the voices of reason in a world that’s all against you. Then, you’ll be willing to pay for their subscription streaming service, and their subscription streaming service for kids, and their merch, and their chocolate, and their razors, et cetera et cetera.

They want you to associate buying products as the way to define yourself, because when you so strongly identify with their politics, you’ll spend as much money as you can signaling to those around you that you don’t support the “woke” agenda through your wallet, you only support those who truly embody your cause. Giving them money becomes a symbol of your values.

And of course, they wouldn’t get any sales without this as a selling point. If they just start a razor brand, not affiliated with their political ventures, who’s gonna buy? Their razors are effectively the same price as Gilette’s, just without the likely higher standard of quality and availability in physical retail locations.

But when they combine all three of those tactics I mentioned to make their target demographic believe they need these razors to display their values, stop a perceived evil agenda, and make their voice heard… well, then you’ve got a good revenue stream.

True that. We have the means to fix so many problems, we just have a very very very small few that reeeeally don’t like to do anything good with their money, and instead choose to hoard it, at the expense of everyone else.