Pass the Corona ese... Novel Corona aka COVID-19

[abrasivesaint]

On 7/21/2021 at 11:29 PM, Mercer said:

This is what real leadership looks like

 

 

Jesus christ. 

[Kults]

On 7/22/2021 at 7:59 AM, Dark_Knight said:

He’s so hard to listen to. It’s cringey to the point that you just want to look away and pretend it’s not happening.

 

But hey, the mean tweets guy is gone wooo!

[Dark_Knight]

36 minutes ago, Kults said:

 

But hey, the mean tweets guy is gone wooo!

As pathetic as it is, having tweet guy not tweeting has made a difference. 
 

Biden is equally fucking the country but he’s doing it in silence like a traditional American president.

[Kults]

13 minutes ago, Dark_Knight said:

As pathetic as it is, having tweet guy not tweeting has made a difference. 
 

Biden is equally fucking the country but he’s doing it in silence like a traditional American president.

 

debatable but hey, I got no skin in the game 🤷🏻‍♂️

[abrasivesaint]

Fuck em both. 

[Mercer]

Pretty obvious now that covid itself was tax funded. Just like most other WMD's, wars, genocides, and famines. It's almost like there's a lesson we could take from this but I'm not sure what it is. I mean what about muh roads?

[Kults]

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

Pretty obvious now that covid itself was tax funded. Just like most other WMD's, wars, genocides, and famines. It's almost like there's a lesson we could take from this but I'm not sure what it is. I mean what about muh roads?

 There are semi private highways in Ontario. You can take the public one for free or pay the 20-30$ and take the private one, better maintained, less traffic ( ppl are cheap) and probably get to where you’re going faster cause of where it’s situated. Imagine having to pay every time you used any highway though? That would kinda suck and i doubt i’d save enough on taxes to make it a worthwhile proposition. Mix of both is def nice though 

[Mercer]

There is an illusion roads are, or should be "totally free" (extortion funded) to drive on as much as you desire, because a voluntary system of tolls, subscriptions, etc might negatively affect "the poor". Some of the same people propagating this common whataboutism think that automotive co2 emissions , and the consequential global warming that comes along with it also negatively effects the "poor" disproportionately, and something must be done to slow/stop it before it's too late??? Instead of ending the government (biggest polluter), or the government subsidization of increased co2 emissions AKA "free" roads, they think communism (more government) is our only hope. We live in the dim age.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Mercer

[Kults]

43 minutes ago, Mercer said:

There is an illusion roads are, or should be "totally free" 

 

nothing is ‘totally free’ 

 

you’re paying one way or another 

[ndv]

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

There is an illusion roads are, or should be "totally free" (extortion funded) to drive on as much as you desire, because a voluntary system of tolls, subscriptions, etc might negatively affect "the poor". Some of the same people propagating this common whataboutism think that automotive co2 emissions , and the consequential global warming that comes along with it also negatively effects the "poor" disproportionately, and something must be done to slow/stop it before it's too late??? Instead of ending the government (biggest polluter), or the government subsidization of increased co2 emissions AKA "free" roads, they think communism (more government) is our only hope. We live in the dim age.

 

 

1 hour ago, Kults said:

 

nothing is ‘totally free’ 

 

you’re paying one way or another 

 

 

Y'alls convo made me think of this Tee on top of other topics going around in discussion amongst politics.

 

 

[abrasivesaint]

9 hours ago, Mercer said:

There is an illusion roads are, or should be "totally free" (extortion funded) to drive on as much as you desire,

 
¿lolque?

[abrasivesaint]

10 hours ago, Kults said:

There are semi private highways in Ontario. You can take the public one for free or pay the 20-30$ and take the private one, better maintained, less traffic

$20-30 every time you want to take a certain road?
 

There’s no difference in paying taxes to a state funded road or a private road, where as now the private owner is the “state.”
 

New Orleans property owners have responsibilities to maintain the sidewalks in front of their house. They are massively fucked up, and most you couldn’t ride a bicycle down without knocking your teeth out. Acting like a purely self-interested human being is any different than a self-interested government is just naive. Some people just don’t give a flying fuck about others. It is a problem with perspective. One that has brought us to this dim world mentioned. 
 

This idea that free markets create a utopia and a government creates a dystopia is bullshit. Any form of unchecked power results in the same thing. It doesn’t matter if it’s Capitalism or Communism. 
 

We’re practically already there anyway. Corporations control our government and do whatever they want. They are largely unchecked if the right pockets are lined. If there’s no government pockets to fill, they simply do what they want anyway. In the end the corporations become the state and we’re in the same boat we’re in now. 

Edited July 30, 2021 by abrasivesaint

[Mercer]

2 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

There’s no difference in paying taxes to a state funded road or a private road,

 

Sure there is, if you pay per use, you'll use it less, thus slow co2 emissions. It's that simple. If it's funded through tax extortion, motorists, shipping companies, etc. get's unlimited use. Their true cost of doing business is distorted by this subsidy, while other businesses, and people who aren't conducting interstate commerce themselves are unfairly penalized.

 

You'll be incentivized to buy local, goods and services will become less big corp, more localized. People won't be able to afford to commute long distances regularly if they don't take their tax savings and use it for tolls. I mean there's a long list of benefits for pay per use, but I can't think of a single drawback. 

[Kults]

3 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

$20-30 every time you want to take a certain road?

 

Depending on how far you’re going and at what time, ya 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Highway_407

[abrasivesaint]

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

 

Sure there is, if you pay per use, you'll use it less, thus slow co2 emissions. It's that simple. If it's funded through tax extortion, motorists, shipping companies, etc. get's unlimited use. Their true cost of doing business is distorted by this subsidy, while other businesses, and people who aren't conducting interstate commerce themselves are unfairly penalized.

I’m all for lowering co2 emissions, however, this feels like the low hanging fruit. Transportation produces about 1/3 of emissions, it is still industry who produces the most. With the trend of electric vehicles, the emissions from transportation seem like it will eventually lessen it’s impact. With better public transit, if cities were more affordable, if we could agree that the need for in-office employment, or even 40 hours a week is unnecessary, we could also lessen these emissions from transportation. 

 

 

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

 

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

You'll be incentivized to buy local, goods and services will become less big corp, more localized. People won't be able to afford to commute long distances regularly if they don't take their tax savings and use it for tolls. I mean there's a long list of benefits for pay per use, but I can't think of a single drawback. 

Fully back the incentives to buy local as opposed to cross-country transported goods, (sorry freights.)

Again, this seems to hurt the commuters more than anyone. Many high paying jobs are in cities, yet cities are becoming increasingly impossible to afford for families. Thus, commuting is inevitable. Unless we want to create yet another privilege that only previously established upper classes can afford. Turning cities into elite playgrounds and sending the peasants into the woods. 

 

I do not like removing anything from the hands of the people. Privatization of roads leaves the people at the mercy of the proprietor of these roads. That road in Canada that @Kultsmentioned seems to have plenty of controversy involving costs to citizens.

 

What are the road laws, how are the enforced and by whom, and who gets to decide the laws? Does the state or the people have any legal power over issues involving proprietor and persons using the roads, or is it simply “their property, their rules” ?  
 

Seems like a small step in a slippery slope to a world where we may not be at the whim of the government, but to industry and corporations, who are in turn, the government. 

[Kults]

6 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

I do not like removing anything from the hands of the people. Privatization of roads leaves the people at the mercy of the proprietor of these roads. That road in Canada that @Kultsmentioned seems to have plenty of controversy involving costs to citizens.

 

What are the road laws, how are the enforced and by whom, and who gets to decide the laws? Does the state or the people have any legal power over issues involving proprietor and persons using the roads, or is it simply “their property, their rules” ?  
 

Seems like a small step in a slippery slope to a world where we may not be at the whim of the government, but to industry and corporations, who are in turn, the government. 

 

Bladerunner/Shadowrun 

 

[Mercer]

5 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

I’m all for lowering co2 emissions, however, this feels like the low hanging fruit. Transportation produces about 1/3 of emissions, it is still industry who produces the most. With the trend of electric vehicles, the emissions from transportation seem like it will eventually lessen it’s impact. With better public transit, if cities were more affordable, if we could agree that the need for in-office employment, or even 40 hours a week is unnecessary, we could also lessen these emissions from transportation. 

 

 

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

 

Fully back the incentives to buy local as opposed to cross-country transported goods, (sorry freights.)

Again, this seems to hurt the commuters more than anyone. Many high paying jobs are in cities, yet cities are becoming increasingly impossible to afford for families. Thus, commuting is inevitable. Unless we want to create yet another privilege that only previously established upper classes can afford. Turning cities into elite playgrounds and sending the peasants into the woods. 

 

I do not like removing anything from the hands of the people. Privatization of roads leaves the people at the mercy of the proprietor of these roads. That road in Canada that @Kultsmentioned seems to have plenty of controversy involving costs to citizens.

 

What are the road laws, how are the enforced and by whom, and who gets to decide the laws? Does the state or the people have any legal power over issues involving proprietor and persons using the roads, or is it simply “their property, their rules” ?  
 

Seems like a small step in a slippery slope to a world where we may not be at the whim of the government, but to industry and corporations, who are in turn, the government. 

 

 

Look, I'm just offering solutions here that don't involve coercive means of enforcement. You seem to agree something should, must be done. Then you go on pointing out how these solutions will also involve some level of sacrifice. All solutions will involve some level of sacrifice by somebody, right? So point taken.

 

Here's my point, the asshole who lives 2 hours from the city, that can barely afford to commutes in every day might need to switch their shit up if this ends. Fuck em. Either move closer to work, or pay the actual costs yourself. I don't think failure at managing your own finances is an excuse to do whatever the fuck you want like live 2 hours from your job and waste your entire life commuting. The entire point here is changing this behavior, cleaning up what we breath, and I also happen to be presenting a solution that reduces the state's exertion of force. That's what I call a win/win/win. Bottom line is somebody is going to have to move, take the train, or find work closer to home if we're going to fix this shit right?

 

So, if you agree behaviors need to be changed to fix co2 emissions, what's your better alternative to my solution of highway privatization? If can't come up with a better alternative, can you explain what actual good comes from the current system of government subsidizing this otherwise unaffordable, wasteful lifestyle of long commutes. The problem is you can't present a better alternative to increased energy efficiency, and reduced co2 without disproportionately placing the burden on the tax payer. This puts everything on the shoulders of the so called "working class" since the rich and poor don't pay taxes. 

Here's another random taste of reality, most actual "poor" people don't own cars, and those that do somehow still aren't benefitting much from "muh roads" subsidization because they're probably not commuting in from the burbs. So even if your goal is punishing the rest of society just to benefit the poors, you're really only helping a small minority of them, and certainly not the ones that need the most help. Long commutes into the city from the burbs is more of a middle, and upper class thing. Ending the subsidy means these people would see a net cost/benefit gain by dropping the current wasteful (crony capitalism) method fort funding roads. They could keep the tax savings, or just paying per use. To be fair, I think people commuting more, should have to pay more. A more common sense approach than continued idiotic class warfare.  

 

We've established that your objections only point out the obvious, there will need to be sacrifices by those currently subsidized. So I'll at least give you that. I also agree some people will be worse off. As usual, when I present a solution, people are quick to point out a negative consequence of this solution, but are unable to present a better alternative. I find this mildly frustrating always presenting my argument to be picked apart, but people here hide behind not presenting their own solutions/points of view, and arguments that support it. This isn't a personal attack here but I don't see you presenting any solutions yourself here. I mean do you even have one? Is pointing out road tolls cost money, and poor people have less money a win for you?

 

Like most, you lean towards shaping society through state coercion. This means a solution sounds like pure nonsense to you unless it implies a certain segment of the population is disproportionately harmed. In your case, it only will make sense if you're fucking over the taxpayers. In a right wing frame of mind, the solution only strokes their confirmation bias if it fucks over those with less advantages. Both sides of this dichotomy are so stuck in this frame of mind, a non-coercive, common sense solution like encouraging people to drive/consume less by paying for what they use seems infeasible for some reason.

 

I still invite you to explain what you prefer about our current non-action on reducing co2, or what you think would be a feasible way to reduce co2 so I can point out how it's totally invalid, or a "slippery slope" because it might be harmful to a small minority of the population.

[mr.yuck]

[mr.yuck]

[ndv]

😆  whomp, whomp, whomp.  Tik tok cheerleaders.  

[Mercer]

[abrasivesaint]

6 hours ago, Mercer said:

 

 

Look, I'm just offering solutions here that don't involve coercive means of enforcement. You seem to agree something should, must be done. Then you go on pointing out how these solutions will also involve some level of sacrifice. All solutions will involve some level of sacrifice by somebody, right? So point taken.

 

Here's my point, the asshole who lives 2 hours from the city, that can barely afford to commutes in every day might need to switch their shit up if this ends. Fuck em. Either move closer to work, or pay the actual costs yourself. I don't think failure at managing your own finances is an excuse to do whatever the fuck you want like live 2 hours from your job and waste your entire life commuting. The entire point here is changing this behavior, cleaning up what we breath, and I also happen to be presenting a solution that reduces the state's exertion of force. That's what I call a win/win/win. Bottom line is somebody is going to have to move, take the train, or find work closer to home if we're going to fix this shit right?

 

So, if you agree behaviors need to be changed to fix co2 emissions, what's your better alternative to my solution of highway privatization? If can't come up with a better alternative, can you explain what actual good comes from the current system of government subsidizing this otherwise unaffordable, wasteful lifestyle of long commutes. The problem is you can't present a better alternative to increased energy efficiency, and reduced co2 without disproportionately placing the burden on the tax payer. This puts everything on the shoulders of the so called "working class" since the rich and poor don't pay taxes. 

Here's another random taste of reality, most actual "poor" people don't own cars, and those that do somehow still aren't benefitting much from "muh roads" subsidization because they're probably not commuting in from the burbs. So even if your goal is punishing the rest of society just to benefit the poors, you're really only helping a small minority of them, and certainly not the ones that need the most help. Long commutes into the city from the burbs is more of a middle, and upper class thing. Ending the subsidy means these people would see a net cost/benefit gain by dropping the current wasteful (crony capitalism) method fort funding roads. They could keep the tax savings, or just paying per use. To be fair, I think people commuting more, should have to pay more. A more common sense approach than continued idiotic class warfare.  

 

We've established that your objections only point out the obvious, there will need to be sacrifices by those currently subsidized. So I'll at least give you that. I also agree some people will be worse off. As usual, when I present a solution, people are quick to point out a negative consequence of this solution, but are unable to present a better alternative. I find this mildly frustrating always presenting my argument to be picked apart, but people here hide behind not presenting their own solutions/points of view, and arguments that support it. This isn't a personal attack here but I don't see you presenting any solutions yourself here. I mean do you even have one? Is pointing out road tolls cost money, and poor people have less money a win for you?

 

Like most, you lean towards shaping society through state coercion. This means a solution sounds like pure nonsense to you unless it implies a certain segment of the population is disproportionately harmed. In your case, it only will make sense if you're fucking over the taxpayers. In a right wing frame of mind, the solution only strokes their confirmation bias if it fucks over those with less advantages. Both sides of this dichotomy are so stuck in this frame of mind, a non-coercive, common sense solution like encouraging people to drive/consume less by paying for what they use seems infeasible for some reason.

 

I still invite you to explain what you prefer about our current non-action on reducing co2, or what you think would be a feasible way to reduce co2 so I can point out how it's totally invalid, or a "slippery slope" because it might be harmful to a small minority of the population.

I support more regulations on industry, who still produce the most emissions. There needs to be a push for alternative sources of energy instead of grasping on to things like coal. If some industries spent more time focusing on this instead of just tapping every oil source dry, and lobbying to keep their current way of business “as is”, we’d probably get a lot further as a nation. 
 

As far as commuters and transportation, dickheads driving lifted trucks that have absolutely no practical value to their life or business other than they feel like a man should smarten the fuck up, and suck it the fuck up. Obviously there are practical uses for vans and trucks, but i dont think they need to commute from southern NH to Boston to go work their equipment provided union job their your F350s. I think your tool bag will fit in a smaller car, or truck. Maybe i’m just a pussy though. 
 

I still think you’re denying the fact that there is always a state. Call it a government, a private corporation, a single proprietor. There is always some form of authority with some manner of enforcement. We can call it whatever we want, but in the end who ever makes the tules and enforces them is, essentially, the state.

 

I prefer pushes be done in society through consensus. Obviously not everyone agrees and their concerns should be heard, considered, negotiated, and worked with wherever possible. Some people are just flat out unreasonable. If THE PEOPLE collectively decide privitization of roads are the beat course of action, then that’s what it is. However, we all know this is never how it works. It is decided by our delegates who have been lobbied by the few that privatization will benefit because they’re the ones with the money to afford the purchasing of the roads. Again, hurting everyone but the rich.
 

The taxes only hurt the working class because of a corrupted, lobbied system, that refuses to tax the rich at any manner of higher rate. The same rich that will then not only benefit from the taxes that hurt the workers, but now also own the privatized roads.
 

I don’t have a problem with most tolls. They’re fairly inexpensive and although there is always some degree of mismanagement of funds within the state, i have absolutely 0 faith that privatization results in any better outcomes. Corporations have proven this time and again, the workers never benefit. They lobby for leaser restrictions claiming everyone will benefit, and they don’t. It’s almost always a pyramid scheme. Maybe taxes aren’t the answer, maybe people need to be better at, and educated on budgeting, but i think privatization is far from the answer. I’d rather pay $3 to the state, than $30 to a private owner for a one way trip on a road.
 

Coincidentally, i received a letter in the mail today from the Massachusetts EZ Pass because i currently don't own the transponder, so they bill me by mail. This is my fault for not just signing up for getting one or whatever. However, there is no longer options for paying at a toll booth at many locations due to cameras and automized systems. Another job lost to save money, but this is beside the point. This bill was for $2. Between the paper, the envelope, the time spent packing the invoice in the envelope, mailing it, delivering it, gas emissions.. I can’t imagine they’re making a profit from that $2. If they just allowed me to continue to pay at the toll booth, they’d received their $2 profit and yippie ki yay everyones happy. So i understand the mismanagement and bureaucratic miscalculations of some implemented systems. I don’t think privatization and a higher toll to cover profits and expenses is the answer here though. I think a better a system for payment and billing is a better answer. Send me a fucking email with a link for payment. The RMV has my email on file..

 

Moving closer to ones work is just not that simple, when we currently have private companies buying up real estate, forcing citizens to then rent houses, condos, apartments, and converting everything else to these “luxury condos” and skyrocketing prices locally. Rent is through the fucking roof in this country right now. Wages have barely risen, if at all, taxes get raised on the middle and lower classes, inflation gets slapped on everything, leaving the citizens fucked, yet again. 
 

When i left to travel for work 4 years ago i paid $1300 for a 3 bedroom. In that same city, i cant find a studio for under $1400 right now. I would have to move further away and commute, which i’m already doing. I make a decent living and am not stupid with my money, i’m pretty good at management of my funds. My alternative for now has been to move in with my brother’s family, still commuting, and pay him $500 a month for a bedroom in his house instead of $1400 for a studio. They win on paying less for their mortgage, i win with cheaper rent

 

Some of the poor who dont own vehicles cant afford them because of wages combined with rents, inflation, ect, because the good wages for many jobs are in the cities. The same cities that they cant afford to live in on the wages provided, but that are sustainable for life outside the city, resulting in commuting. Obviously this isn’t the case for everyone, obviously some people don’t know how to handle their shit, but it isn’t everyone. Some people do every thing right and just never get ahead. Unforeseen circumstances combined with flawed systems leave these people treading water and trying to stay afloat constantly. Personal responsibility is always a factor, but there’s always outside factors as well. You cant pull yourself up by your bootstraps and stand on your own feet if you’re being constantly kicked over.

[mr.yuck]

4 hours ago, ndv said:

😆  whomp, whomp, whomp.  Tik tok cheerleaders.  

The butt hurt is is ferocious.

[Kults]

[abrasivesaint]

https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/08/02/mayor-muriel-bowser-under-fire-for-allegedly-violating-her-indoor-mask-mandate-at-a-wedding/
 

 

 

 

edit: LOL.

Edited August 3, 2021 by abrasivesaint

[Schnitzel]

new zealand in a three day lockdown nationwide over 7 cases in auckland caused by some australian.

if you lived in invercargill how pissed would you be?

that's almost exactly 1,000 miles away.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dark_Knight]

I wouldn’t be that pissed Bc living in New Zealand seems pretty tight.

[Kults]

4 hours ago, Dark_Knight said:

I wouldn’t be that pissed Bc living in New Zealand seems pretty tight.

 ehhh…

 

 

[Dark_Knight]

17 minutes ago, Kults said:

 ehhh…

 

 

[Kults]

2 minutes ago, Dark_Knight said:

 

 

Honestly it looks like a fever dream to me