Welding Mask

[weldingmaskon]

Anything I post here always comes with an unspoken "make of all the above what you will".

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

The staunchly "liberal" folks I know, I just can't understand their takes on the world anymore, as they all seem absurdly, painfully trivial, and ignoring all the most pressing issues of the day, which they furiously pretend aren't even a thing, or if they are a thing, they are only a thing for evil people, who we don't want to be thought of as tolerating, so it's unthinkable anyone would choose to mention them. Only a monster would want to fix the problems that make our everyday world a dystopian nightmare.

[hst3000]

For many people, talking about a problem hits the same psychological dopamine button as SOLVING the problem.

And it's so much easier.

[unaffiliatedpangolin]

There’s also the matter of people who steal tax dollars while pretending to be working at fixing a problem.

But of course, fixing the problem would put you out of work, so you have to exacerbate the problem, and then say you were underfunded this whole time.

“If only we actually cared about this problem and devoted some money to it it would be fixed” -executive of an NGO making $400K

Eventually it becomes a giant money laundering scheme for the politically connected.

[brazenautomaton]

This is exactly how Communists think about the world, you know.

That there is a big Solve Problems switch and all they have to do is decide to press it, and everyone in power is evilly refusing to press it

They say exactly the same thing as the first screenshot. Like exactly. They merely think the simple and obvious solution is "Communism" and that people are pretending not to know what is going on due to false consciousness.

You should always strive to be as little like Communists as possible. When you find yourself repeating what they say with a couple nouns swapped, that's the sign to stop yourself, sit down, and ask where you went wrong.

[squigglebug]

I know this has been said so many times in so many words but it is never any less infuriating that we never seem to have basic social services money but we always have fucking war crime money

[squigglebug]

fucking evergreen post I guess

[anarchistmemedistro]

they got money for wars, but can’t feed the poor

-tupac shakur, 1993

[cookingwithroxy]

The sad thing is that there's like... a reason for this kinda? Multiple reasons. SO many reasons.

But if we go by the budgets? In 2025 Medicare budget was 1 trillion dollars. Not social security, not medicaid, just Medicare.

The Military (all branches) was 850 billion. So the military AS A WHOLE got less money than medicare by 150 billion.

But when the military spends money, it's often on supplies. Long term things. You spend 25 million dollars on a tank, next year you still have a tank. You spend 25 million dollars on health care for kids, and next year you have kids, who still need health care paid for!

So the military gets to build up resources, and even sell off things they no longer use. Having a large stockpile and ability to act. But ANYTHING invested into social services is GONE, with most things never re-usable.

Which makes it FEEL as if we're giving more money to the military than anything else, but it's really just savings.

But it's also worth keeping in mind that 1 trillion in Medicare means it has about 3 thousand dollars per person in america. And any fraud against Medicare hurts so many people because of that.

Doctor Sentenced to Seven Years in Prison for $24M Medicare Fraud

On October 23, a New York doctor was sentenced to seven years in prison for causing the submission of over $24 million in fraudulent claims

So this one fraud took about eight THOUSAND people's worth of medicare. And this wasn't even the biggest one someone got convicted for in 2025!

Lots of the reason why there's no budget for helping people is because the fraud is at the corporate level! And that fraud takes money from people who REALLY need it.

[self-winding]

The US government does spend a lot of money on healthcare, more than almost anything else except for social security payments (which are kinda their own self-contained thing so don't really count) and yet healthcare is still famously unaffordable and difficult to access in the US.

Fraud certainly exists but I tend to think the bigger part of the problem is just that the way the US delivers healthcare is incredibly convoluted and inefficient, involving lots of expensive middlemen (insurance companies mostly) and layers of bureaucracy.

It is also a self-reinforcing problem. Many people cannot afford overpriced insurance in the US (which the ACA was meant to help address, but did so imperfectly, and those benefits have now been slashed), so many people remain uninsured, which means they can't access basic care, which means they will just let health problems go until those problems reach catastrophic level, at which point they have no choice but to use the emergency room as their primary care, which they can't pay for, so the system eats the cost. That cost then gets absorbed by everything else, jacking up prices across the board.

It is also hard to address this because doing it right would mean gutting the entire system and rebuilding it from the ground up to be more efficient. But this would be incredibly difficult because people still need to receive care in the meantime and it's hard to do that when you're rebuilding the system from the ground up, so solutions have typically involved stapling another extra layer of bureaucracy on top, which makes the entire structure even more complicated and inefficient and expensive.

[soundlessdragon]

My kids are still quite young (under school age), and I've been careful to try to make sure they only have kind role models. This has resulted in typical mean language being absent from their vocabulary, such as "you're stupid/ugly/I hate you", but they've started inventing their own ways to be mean lol, such as "you're not my brother anymore, you're a stranger to me now", and hearing that out of a toddler's mouth is so cutting lol

[soundlessdragon]

My favorite tags so far

[gator-crusador]

This is a great case-in-point about why designating certain words forbidden is an ineffective strategy. Words don’t dictate thoughts and feelings; they express them. The thoughts and feelings remain, even if the mode of expression is taken away, and a new mode of expression for the thought will be found.

[rowlfthedog]

[thejdog2000]

Genuine question for ancaps

I agree with you that capitalism is objectively the best economic system we've got, but what makes you believe that anarchism can work?

[beardedmrbean]

That is a very good question

[hastysmartposts]

It's very simple.

Imagine that the year is 1825, exactly 200 years ago. You say to me, "Slavery is a grave moral evil. It holds a man in bondage against his will in a system he cannot escape; the product of his labor is stolen from him. He cannot simply leave, lest he be hunted down and returned, or be killed for his efforts. He has committed no crime but to be born into it. This violates the Rights the Creator has granted unto him by virtue of being made in His Image. Therefore, slavery must end."

To which I reply, "But who will pick my crops?"

The only correct and moral response to this question is: "I don't know, and I don't care."

Now, I say to you, now: "Government is a grave moral evil. It holds us in bondage against our will in a system we cannot escape; the product of our labor is stolen from us. We cannot simply leave, lest we be hunted down and returned, or be killed for our efforts. We have committed no crime but to be born into it. This violates the Rights the Creator has granted unto us by virtue of being made in His image. Therefore, government must end."

So you ask, "But what will we do without it?"

The only correct and moral response to this question is: "I don't know, and I don't care."

Let us suppose that, for the sake of our thought experiment that back in 1825 you had a crystal ball so when I asked you, "But who will pick my crops?", I looked into the future and told you, "In the future, there will be giant metal monsters, half an acre wide, that will gobble up the crops and spit out a nearly finished product, and it would all run on flaming dinosaur juice." Any person would dismiss this claim immediately as nonsense, even though this is precisely what is considered completely normal today.

Even if I could provide an explanation for exactly how anarchy would or could work in the future, the fact is nobody right now could possibly understand it because it has not yet been done. That does not mean that such a system cannot work, but in the same way that a person in 1825 could not comprehend modern industrial agricultural machinery, right now we cannot foresee precisely how future systems can work. All that matters now is making the rational, moral argument for government to be peacefully dismantled, the same way abolitionists called for slavery to be dismantled in the past.

[rvbsarge]

Except that there was a simple, easy, non-magic answer to the question of "who will pick my crops" that is NOT "I don't know and I don't care". The answer was "someone who is not a slave". Simple, clean, obvious.

This is one of the most egregious false equivalencies to justify a logically flawed concept I have ever seen.

[anamericangirl]

I mean props to the guy who is probably the only anarchist I’ve seen try to answer instead of name calling, but…it’s not really an answer. It’s a long winded way of saying “I don’t know.”

Which, if you don’t know you don’t know but the slavery analogy is not going to work here because the goal of the abolition of slavery was just the abolition of slavery.

With anarchy, you’re not just trying to abolish something, you’re trying to implement something. Something specific and defined. And if all you can say when questioned as to why this system should be in place and how it will work is “I don’t know” then you’re not making a case for it at all.

[basedhighsenberg]

The "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" people when their comments celebrating Kirk's death get uploaded to a public website with their names and photos and they start facing real life consequences for being ghouls:

[tired-pidgeon]

I thought conservatives were against cancel culture???

[generallemarc]

And I thought people old enough to have tumblr accounts were able to understand the concept of hypocrisy being pointed out.

[takashi0]

When you bully someone for a school year they'll eventually fight back when they get the chance.

When you ignore everyone who says starting witch hunts that ruin peoples lives is a bad idea an brag about it for 13 years on, eventually people will stop giving a fuck about the moral implications of sinking to your level and just start doing it right back to you.

Which is why those of us with any forethought kept telling you to quit that shit but y'all didn't listen, so now we're really gonna see everything go to shit.

[cookingwithroxy]

@tired-pidgeon There's a thing. Cancel Culture is a thing where people go 'Oh you said a non-actionable thing' or 'You like problematic material' and then try and destroy you. 'Your politics are wrong so you should lose your job'.

By contrast, what is going on is some version of 'Incitement of violence' or 'Aiding and Abetting'. Like, to the degree that if someone reads their twitter feed and does a copycat murder, the people ON their twitter feed can be charged and serve jail time.

And these are in fact major differences, which is why nobody goes 'cancel culture strikes again!' when some asshole breaks the law live on video and gets arrested for it.

Or do you think it's only 'cancel Culture' that Johnny Somali is facing a decade in jail for the shit he did in South Korea?

[cookingwithroxy]

Last thing before I go for busy stuff today.

If your political plan relies entirely on the good faith and good behavior of your political opposites, that they constantly refrain from doing the things you do and hold back from breaking the moral codes you discard?

You are not the more moral person in the argument.

It's not to say THEY are the more moral person, they can be absolute shit in entirely other ways! But your expectation of peace and non-escalation means you feel you are in a position of power and strength without any risk or retribution... and as such, you feel no need to not abuse those around you.

This goes for every political group, nobody is free from sin.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>If your political plan relies entirely on the good faith and good behavior of your political opposites

Which is especially ironic considering how often the mainstream left claims the right are Nazis or other fascists who want to hurt and even kill loads of people, including the left.

[hometoursandotherstuff]

[squeakitties]

wikipedia no longer being anywhere near the top of search results when looking up anything feels eviscerating

[ichorandpride]

#they really said “you can’t use wiki as an academic source-use our garbage AI that’s even less reliable”#and you can’t even opt out of it

no but you can FORCE it away. use ublock origin and copy paste the blacklist i made into the filters to be able to remove the bullshit AI overview that google forces. it also removes youtube's forced ads (at least until they fix it)

you can also use the ublacklist extension and use this blacklist of AI image generation websites to curate your google image results

there are ALWAYS ways around stuff. it's just a matter of looking into it and asking around

[nicenice7]

I'M FREE

[alistairsprayerwarrior]

FOR WIKIPEDIA!!!!

[miumiugirl222]

Just as some people are born to be leaders who shape the world, some are born to be followers. And that is not a bad thing at all. After all, a king is nothing without his loyal people and soldiers. Leadership is not for everybody, and is a huge burden that is often glamorized. Yes, it's a hugely important thing, but people don't talk enough about the pressure and responsibility it takes. Most are not equipped for it.

But people don't seem to understand that and seem to tie being a leader with being the only way to be considered someone who is important and successful. Like for example, if a woman were to say her dream is to be a secretary, she would be told to aim higher. But what's wrong with taking a more subservient role? Their role important as well. They're the ones carrying out the leader's will. Without their efforts, nothing would be done.

Whether we like it or not, there is a hierarchy. Some people are made to be in charge and the rest to carry out their will. It's a natural order, it's nature's design. It's also common sense honestly, some people are better and more suited in some things than others are. It just makes sense to play to your strengths.

[nonenosome2]

Back when I was a Systems Administrator I didn't want to move to a managerial position. I liked what I was doing and I knew that the responsibilities I saw my boss having to deal with, I wanted nothing to do with it.

[theliterarywolf]

I don't know why this thought came to me just now, but my condolences to parents and guardians who legitimately want to homeschool their children but are getting lumped in with the current wave of 'Unschooling' weirdos.

[weldingmaskon]

People who take their kids out of school under the guise of homeschooling but end up not teaching them anything. There have been multiple cases of 'Unschooled' children not knowing how to write or do basic math because of it

I brought it up to someone elsewhere, and got:

To my knowledge "unschooling" is a modified, more hands on, Montessori approach which can work well with non-high school age children.

So it appears there are conflicting definitions on the matter.

[mutualize]

Don't kill yourself, please.

[mutualize]

If you’re suffering from depression and are looking for a sign to not go through with ending your life, this is it. This is the sign. We care.

If you see this on your dash, reblog it. You could save a life.

[artistic-rising-demon-deactivat]

You just saved mine.

[myfandomrealitea]

I am actually begging some people to just let some spaces exist untouched by real-world issues and horrors.

Like I've lost count of the amount of times peaceful game or fandom servers have been ruined by people stampeding in with political rants, bitching about world issues, demanding internal activism, demanding vent channels so they can whine about their shitty parents, ect.

Like. Respectfully. Not every single space has to be inclusive of and welcoming of outside topics. The real world sucks. We don't needed to be reminded of that absolutely everywhere.

[pro-anomalocaris]

Psychologists have talked about this extensively. In order to repair the damage caused by the stressors of life, your brain needs to have down time in which it is not being stressed. It needs to be able to turn off sometimes and turn down during others. That's how your brain processes stress enough to regulate cortisol production and let you get through whatever it is without being on-edge the entire time, all of the time.

At some point we will, as a society, have to unlearn this idea that if you're ever caught not thinking about something serious, you must not give a shit about others. Your mind is not designed to constantly be stressed.

Your body also isn't, btw - prolonged stress without breaks is linked to all kinds of cardiac problems.

Not only will it not kill you to let the Pokemon Unite server or Naruto/Sasuke server just be about Pokemon Unite or NaruSasu, it would actually benefit you to do so.

If you won't let a place be peaceful for someone else's sake, at least do it for your own.

[takashi0]

This is what people mean when they say "stop making everything political" because as it turns out being eye-deep in politics every waking moment of your life is bad for you and makes you into a psychopath.

[shadewriter13]

Makes me wonder if they dream of politics or when they wake up do they just try to analyze what their dreams ACTUALLY mean to their true subconscious values or whatever.

[weldingmaskon]

It's probably "spoilsport" behavior to just disrupt things like that, yeah.

[wherelibertydwells]

[the-davest-of-uncles]

“Since it is so likely that (children) will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker.”

― C.S. Lewis

[sunder-the-gold]

This is why Superman is so important, and why tearing him down for the emotional pornography of adults is a crime against children.

[imperfectmind]

im not making fun of you but emotional pornography is such a funny term, likeva soap opera but they fuck

[sunder-the-gold]

Well, I meant something more like actual soap operas. It’s gratuitous entertainment for emotions rather than sexual lust. Like how people call Ghibli movies and other such things “scenery porn” because the landscapes are so gorgeous. Or “gun porn” for exceedingly detailed visuals of firearms discharging ammunition. Or “food porn” for depictions of beautiful and tasty-looking food.

[marinetti-dinner-party]

@brazenautomaton again, you really could not have picked a worse person to try this on

it'd be like going up to warren balogh and saying "i'll bet your forehead is a normal size, for a human person to have. bet you can't prove me wrong" or telling chris cantwell that he is not sufficiently versed getting owned via diss track

i have a specific definition of fascism that i use, and one the self-described fascists also seem to use. if you want me to whip it out for you, i can. but don't pretend i'm a lib with an amorphous shifting definition of fascism because you're boxing with the ghost of the Dreade SJW from tumblr 2016 and want to score some sick dunks on her. i mean, i'll happily play along if it makes you feel better, but please know i find it goofy and a little obnoxious (not obnoxious enough to not play along, of course!).

[brazenautomaton]

you act like every single person who does this dance doesn't also claim to have a consistent definition that somehow escalates to describe anything with a certain set of aesthetics they don't like. and that these people are "libs" instead of leftists who all love talking about "the fash" and how much they hate "libs." I don't think anyone who has used the term "the fash" has ever been a liberal, ever? this is an assessment derived entirely from vocal and proud communists in the year of our lord right now.

I'm certain you have a rigorous exclusive definition of fascism. It just doesn't match what anyone else says is fascism and doesn't match a bunch of the things you say are fascism.

[dashaibo]

Op, maybe you should lead with your definition of fascism and if you post that Umberto Eco's thing, maybe you should ruminate on why it seems specifically constructed to exclude USSR and Communist China from the definition.

[marinetti-dinner-party]

Good point haha! Very true.

Please check my FAQ! I have it posted because many people ask how I define fascism! I use Griffin’s definition—revolutionary palingenetic ultranationalism— and sometimes tack on a post-colonial perspective (imperialism and colonialism turned inward) and Marxist one (idealist as opposed to materialist, a reaction to changing modes of production, a division between abstract and more immediate labor) too if I’m feeling cute.

Actually wait I lied

Fascism is when you punch things and the more punches to do the fascister it is

ETA: most people read Eco wrong and the way he’s currently read by most people renders his piece not especially useful. Even then I think that interpreting him correctly gives us an inadequate framework

[dashaibo]

So by your definition both USSR (at the very minimum post-Lenin) and China are fascist.

[marinetti-dinner-party]

In what way were they palingenetic ultranationalists? Some were nationalists yes, but nationalism alone is insufficient. What about the abstract labor split as described by Postone? What about the idealism?

Note that you also didn’t mention that colonialism coming home could also theoretically be done under a liberal government. And liberalism can be just as nationalist. There’s overlap between these ideologies, but fascism still has a specific combination.

Have you read Stanley Paine?

[dashaibo]

It would be grand if you defined uncommon terms that regular people have never heard of in a public discourse.

But simply looking up your definitions, yes China did build it's modern cultural myth around a national rebirth and strong Han Chinese nationalism. That was a big part of the Cultural Revolution.

Postone himself believed that USSR participated in capitalism, which is arguable, and oppressed workers, which is inarguable.

USSR since Stalin was also heavily nationalistic, antisemitic and invardly colonialist.

And I have no idea what definition of idealism you are using, because both regimes sought out to bring an unreacheable utopia through dictatorship and repression.

[marinetti-dinner-party]

Again, I’ll reiterate my point: fascism and other ideologies overlap if not in theory than practice, just as literally all ideologies do.* Fascism though has a specific definition, and unless it is met, it’s not fascism you’re talking about. It’s funny I’m accused of being too broad when I’m very specific.

Not even touching the China point lol

Antisemitism is not unique to fascist ideology. It’s merely the big part of the most famous example of fascism (to Americans and Eastern Europeans at least, can’t speak for others). Which is why I didn’t include it in my list of prerequisites.

Idealism in the philosophical, not vernacular. As in, idealism versus materialism.

What’s your definition of fascism? And if you say “lots of government” I’ll assume you’re joking.

*Communism and capitalism, in example, are both MATERIALIST. See (main body of text)

[transwolvie]

Sorry for jumping in I just think it's wild this person is using a ton of words to basically say "aha but you think these authoritarian societies weren't fascist so you think they're GOOD" like..... it is actually very easy to say that the USSR and China had authoritarian leaders but not specifically fascists. It's almost like words mean smth

[dashaibo]

I specifically say that I do not believe they're fascist, just that the word "fascism" in the modern context is so vaguely-defined that no matter what definition you give, you can fit a lot of obviously non-fascist regimes under it.

And also I just like pointing out that you Westerners barely even scratch the surface on how much evil bullshit was going on in the country I was born in, sue me.

[rametarin]

Words do mean things. Unfortuntely, 'fascist' appears to shift to mean Satan when uttered by a person seeing the world through Marxist Class Struggle Theorist, Critical [Gender/Sex/Race/ Theorist, and Privilege Theorist eyes. They can't seem to see how their own ambitions are fascist, but believe oppositions are.

Like how in the 80s and 90s, histrionic eco-warriors/tree hugging hippies were very inarguably far-leftist and weirdly obsessed with radical violent environmentalism, and no one would argue that they were left-wing radicals and nutters. But when they got too embarrassing and too liable to the image of what a hard-leftist person considers an acceptable reputation, they started speaking about these ideological embarrassments and Farm League Antifa, as if they were.. Eco-Fascists. And started saying, "these are RIGHT WING beliefs."

So a fascist in the eyes of a radical leftist pretty much just amounts to, "a person with an embarrassing track record that must be with the other team because we reject them, since they're embarrassing, and we don't Do That(tm). So how dare those pathetic fascists do this."

Suddenly overnight what were prime examples of radical left, pro-socialist idiots get handwaved away as "fascist" and thus, somehow, right wing. Kicked out of the club for cringe.

And similar, dyed in the wool TERFS get declared fascist and even right-wing conservative, because while everything else of theirs is hammer and sickle waving (if only in private) nonsense, their refusal to define man and woman based on self-identification and gender theory and demand that society use biological sex as the template, gets them declared to be fascist, under the definition that it disrespects trans peoples civil rights, therefore, "is just like right-wing fascism." Which is such a hilarious snake biting its own medusa head situation I can't help but point it out.

"Radical and violent but not in the interests of socialism and social constructionism" appears to be the only consistent way they define fascist. Because they don't care about anything else.

[cheshireinthemiddle]

"Free speech is freedom from punishment from the government, not from consequences from the public".

Fun fact: various governments have taken away freedom of speech based on public opinion/outrage. As in these countries can punish you for merely offending someone.

That's where we're headed. That's why people are so adamant about letting people voice their opinions, even if we disagree. Freedom.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

Also, I'm pretty sure free speech as a concept has never been limited to protection from the government.

It's also ironic that many of the people who claim otherwise support hate speech laws, and will claim "hate speech is not free speech".

[david-goldrock]

[rhysaka]

Hindu Temple converted to a mosque.

There are many such “mosques” that were once hindu temples in India and the truth is so apparent. Yet Islamic colonialism is completely ignored.