Best products from r/PoliticalHumor

I know I'm late to the comments but I think that I should point out one thing in particular, a quote from Frederic Bastiat:

>“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

Notwithstanding the political leanings of OP or this sub or reddit in particular, it seems like this is the argument being made, that government-operated welfare must continue because we citizens wouldn't take care of each other sufficiently or efficiently. I know many people, and it certainly seems that OP and a lot of people on this sub and reddit can and would do exactly that, without regard to political leaning. It's not correct, nor is it fair to those people, to argue and imply that they want to end welfare programs because they're greedy. For me, at least, the idea to end (or greatly reduce the scope of) government-operated welfare programs would be to support the cause of increased efficiency and remove the rigidity of government policy from the equation. /r/EffectiveAltruism , if you will. In Discover Your Inner Economist, Tyler Cowen makes a great case for Effective Altruism and the desire to do the most charity with your dollar. In another chapter, he points out that when a good thing is trending, it's most beneficial to allow it to happen, even if it's only momentarily popular--such as Hurricane Relief donation boxes at cash registers and wristbands to support a cause. I would likewise say that an inefficient welfare program run by the government is better than no welfare at all, but I would argue that if we had all of our money, we could (and should) choose to use it more efficiently than the government currently is.

And so that there's no mistake of my opinion on the issue or drug testing for welfare benefits, I am strongly against it for several reasons. I'm not sure if that's part of the discussion, but I want to be clear that I grew up off and on food stamps. My opinion against drug testing confounds my right-leaning friends and family, while my stance on the reduction or elimination of welfare programs confounds my liberal friends and family. I'm open for discussion, but not angry arguments and downvoting just because you disagree. My mind has changed on many issues over the years, so if you're polite and/or sincerely want to understand my opinion, there's opportunity for either or both (or all) of us to understand each other.

That’s sad but I get it. Can I play therapist for a second? ^Disclaimer: ^not ^a ^therapist

Let me put it this way: do you want to paint? Then go paint. Is painting itself not the issue but you still want to have some skill to be proud of? Then go find something you want to do and do it.

I struggled with this for almost my entire life. I didn’t want to try new things. One day it clicked: I was only seeking validation of my intellect. My whole life I was told that I had the brains to do anything I wanted, and I held on to that very tightly. In my mind, my innate potential was held up as my only source of self worth, and trying any new thing that I absolutely knew I couldn’t do beforehand represented an unacceptable risk to my ego. What if I tried—tried as hard as I possibly could—and failed?

Well I was put in a situation at work where I had no choice but to try and fail, and do you know what? Nobody expected me to succeed. Nobody was keeping score on my successes and failures in my life. All they asked of me was to do my best.

And so I did try, and it was hard, and I fucked up a lot. Ultimately I succeeded, but it was not a smooth ride. And along the way, I would check in with myself, and I found that I was still here, still breathing. And I felt myself grow. It was exciting.

After that, I picked up some new hobbies—because they were interesting to me and I had always wanted to try them—and I totally sucked at them. But I kept at them, and had soul crushing failures, but also intense euphoric rushes of success, and ultimately gained the confidence to do what I really wanted to do with my life. I had a choice now. My motivations were truly my own.

Check out “Mindset” by Carol Dweck (Mindset: The New Psychology of Success https://www.amazon.com/dp/0345472322/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_bSNVAbNDXTJPM). She explicitly describes the exact thing that it took me years of soul searching to find out. I was in the “fixed” mindset, in her words, and I somehow managed to get into a “growth” mindset. I allowed myself to try and fail and try and fail and ultimately succeed. And even if I didn’t succeed—I was the only one paying attention, so who cares?

Lots of words, and maybe I am making too many assumptions, but I am very passionate about this topic because I wish someone sat me down and told it to me decades ago. I hope this helps you and anyone else reading this.

I agree (to an extent).

I think that the rhetoric used by progressives has gone a long way towards alienating people whose experience of drawing the short lot in life doesn't fit into an increasingly atomising intersectional intellectual discussion of "identity".

I think a lot of poor whites who feel (and have in reality been) left behind find the current identity politics that are so popular on collage campuses as an insult.

We on the left need to address this. The left was supposed to be about solidarity, but in recent years identity politics as a central theme has followed a perversely free market consumerist logic. It's like a tivo for the political landscape.

Conversely the right has co-opted the same assumptions of historically left wing thinkers in their critique of modern discourse.

I'm not advocating an "all lives matter" bs cop out, but that as long as we are focused on academic arguments about identity that leave the working classes alienated, then the progress we make will always be hindered by the resentment it fosters.

Not sure how to save it, but I hope we can.

Full disclosure: I am a white heterosexual cisco male, so I understand that my perspective on the importance and impact of identity politics is grounded in a privileged perspective, but I don't think that shutting people out is the solution.

Edit: added the bit about agreeing, in case my wall of text put anyone off reading the wall of text.

Edit 2: My thinking on this issue has been shaped largely by this book.

There are certainly aspects of her thesis I fundamentally disagree with (a modernist perspective on progress is something I find kinda problematic -but I am wearing a t-shirt with Foucault on it as I write, so I might be a little biased. Also her turn against "counter culture", although I think that in fairness the author means that transgression for the sake of transgression is a hollow concept that has been romanticised by the left for too long -and with that I would begrudgingly agree. Although I do think it makes for a powerful tool to question our own assumptions).

>This is excellent, thoughtful and rational response.

I'm glad I was able to find the right words. Plenty of the people who own guns are rational people who put a great deal of thought into their decisions, and don't take owning a deadly weapon lightly. The next time you hear someone making sweeping generalisations about gun-owners, I hope you'll remember that a great deal of us are actually rational individuals.

>I would personally add into the mix a cost benefit ratio - how can I keep the gun secure while having it accessible enough for there to be any point in having it. (The under-bed gun safe struck me as particularly brilliant.) I probably didn't have to say that aloud to you, but I wanted the observation next to what you said.

I think that depends, partially, on the person, and the situation. If you live by yourself, then as long as you lock your doors/windows, I don't think there is particular need to lock up your home defense gun. Same if you live with your significant other, and trust them to handle it responsibly. (If you think that your significant other would shoot you, or themselves, if they had access to a gun, then I think you have bigger issues to worry about than home defense.) In these cases, people might just buy a holster, and bolt it to the back of their nightstand, or just keep it in the nightstand drawer. Those planning to use a long-gun (rifle or shotgun) for home defense might just keep it under the bed.

If you live with roommates, or have children in the home, then there are a lot of quick-access safe options. Here is one example, which could be bolted to the back of the nightstand, or the side of a desk. There are many more quick access safes that can be bolted to a drawer. These safes aren't perfect, but they'll keep your kid from getting the gun.

I've actually seen some under-bed safes, and they are pretty cool. And don't forget, the quick-access safe only needs to be large enough to hold the gun (or guns, if you want to arm yourself and your wife/husband/life partner) you plan on using for home defense. You can always have a big, refrigerator sized safe elsewhere in the house where you keep your other guns.

It's definitely a good observation to make. Some people are in situations where a gun would need to be secured against people who need to be in the home. In those cases, you need to include the cost of adequately securing the gun in your cost-benefit analysis. Even so, as long as you only need to prevent children from accessing it, you're only looking at around $100 of additional cost.

And for that $400 (+ $100, if it needs to be secured) the gun does offer something that other security measures can't. A great lock, a solid door, and shatter-resistant glass can all slow down someone that means you harm, but a gun can actually stop them. But there are responsibilities that come with owning a gun, and so each person needs to assess whether or not they're responsible enough to benefit from owning one. There are some people that would be better off owning one, and some people that wouldn't.

[This is the system I got.](iSpring RCC7AK 6-Stage Under-Sink Reverse Osmosis Drinking Water Filtration System with Alkaline Remineralization Filter - 75 GPD https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005LJ8EXU/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_bIMdAbGNJ30RB) I read a lot of reviews and my brother-in-law had also bought this one 6 months earlier.

Install was very simple. The hardest part would potentially be drilling a hole in your sink if you need an extra hole for the faucet. I had only basic plumbing experience prior to installing it (disconnecting a bathroom sink trap to unclog it and swapping a faucet). The written instructions are very detailed and easy to follow and they also have a very detailed YouTube instructional of every step. It's basically: shut off water valve under your sink, connect Y adapter to split cold water line, connect system tubing together, turn on water valve under sink, pressurize the system to check for leaks, turn off water valve under the sink, connect system to the faucet, turn on water valve under the sink and run the water for 10 minutes to clean the lines, turn off faucet, let tank fill for an hour or two, turn off water to the system and drain the tank, turn on water to the system to fill tank, and enjoy super clean, tasty water.

Actual work would range from 30-60 minutes depending how much space you have to work in, plumbing familiarity, and whether you need to drill a hole in your sink or there is one available already. Then about another 2-4 hours of passive work to clean the lines and tank before it is ready for use. It made for an easy Sunday project while watching football.

I also bought a 15' tube to connect the system to my fridge's ice maker for store bought quality tasting ice and the manufacturer will send you an extra set of filters free if you leave an Amazon review.

> Is maximizing democracy always a benefit? If it were, a democracy of one would be ideal. Yet generally people recognize that there are problems that can't be solved without covenants of responsibilities enforced by an organization with the ability to override an individual's preference when it serves to ameliorate those problems.

A complicated question. There are tons of problems associated with democracy. In a democracy, with the right to vote, we are all capable of making binding decisions. In other words, I can force you to follow a law if I got a majority supporting me.

That is a pretty big deal. At the very least, you and me should demand that every person with the right to vote must be a competent person that knows to a reasonable extent what they are voting on. But that is not the case.

Then there is deliberation. In a mega democracy, debates and media play a vital role. They give us the information of which we make our choices. But the media does not give every opinion a balanced chance.

You point out that progress is a result of humans solving problems in groups, that would be impossible to solve alone. Therefor, most have recognized that individual preferences must be overridden by a system of law. The common answer to democracy relies mostly of the assumption that humans have an intrensic value, and from there we can gather what rights and values protect the intrensic worth of a human, and then see that a system which protect all rights and values of a human is likely a democracy. At least that is roughly what we gather from Robert Dahl. (From here, here and here, if you have access to any of them I can help finding relevant chapters/pages)

---
I recognize that democracy is a functional system to drive human progress, we cannot all have our way and democracy given that the system strives to follow the 5 democratic criteria of Dahl seems to do a good job of sharing burdens and boons among its members. The problem comes when you mix dictatorship and democracy. Let us say for instance, that the position of minister of health was auctioned off every fourth year instead of voted on. Who would be in charge? I'd wager it would be tobacco interests every period. I claim that a system where you auction off positions of power in a democracy would taint it and make the democracy dysfunctional. That is a problem today, because some of the most powerful positions are not within the government, but rather in the private sector. And there are no democracy in the private sector. We are all blinded by the fact that the government can issue laws over the private sector. In practicality, it hardly can. This mix of two worlds, one where power is given by capital and another where power is given by convincing large masses of people to vote on you (which often costs capital) gives us the tainted modern mega democracies where the tobacco industry is one of the largest lobbyists in the EU and two persons from the upper class ran to be the representative of the people.

But there is a reason not to include democracy in the workplace, or at least a reason for the wealthiest to resist it. Democracy will over time eventually lead to socialism (worker ownership, the proper definition of socialism, not the 'the more a state does, the socialester it is definition) which is why our system must not be fully democratic.

Thanks for the candid response. I am in a similar process myself as a young adult. I am trying to read as much political and economic theory as I can, and so far I've been gravitating toward the socialist side of things. I'm hoping to get more exposure to opposing political theories, but honestly I've had so many "yes, exactly!" moments so far that I don't expect my stance to change much.

If you're looking for a brief read, I recommend Marxism and Darwinism by Anton Pannekoek. It's only 100 pages or so, I think. I really found that one interesting as I come from a science background.

Choice excerpt from the above book:

>To understand modern Socialism, you must understand Evolution. Socialists predict the speedy end of the capitalist system as a result of irresistible natural laws.

Right now I'm only just beginning to dive into fully understanding Marx's Capital series, which is a scientific critique of capitalism. Again, very interesting because of my background. I don't recommend reading the original text because it's dull. I'm reading An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital by Michael Heinrich.

Sure! there are links to it on your local amazon via my site - or just search "Bunnies with Jobs" by Glynn Mo :)

• please keep in mind it's a bit sardonic, like an oddball coffee table book
  
  
• It's intentionally complex despite the minimal word count (but there's nothing controversial) for children
  
  
• If kids read it I suspect they will grow up to understand it's meaning, rather than learn from the book itself - it's quite basic and I just love drawing bunnies 🐰
  
  There's no real agenda in the book other than to be wry, I hope anyone who buys it enjoys it for a laugh or a bit of subversion <3
  
  

> Quoting Deuteronomic laws as evidence that Judaism/Christianity is morally bankrupt is not all that simple.

You're dismissing the bible because of old, cultural relativity morals. If god was the creator of objective morals, the bible would lay claim to that, would it not? Simply saying "God(s) created morality" and then ignoring or dismissing all the amoral things in holy texts is the easy way out of not having to truly consider why morality exists in the first place.

In reality, no god needs to have to existed for morals to exist, it does not need a creator.

>It's not that X religion is the best, morally speaking, but whether objective morality exists at all. If, say, Zoroastrianism is the true religion, it doesn't undermine the idea that objective morality exists (unless Zoroastrianism doesn't believe in objective morality-- that would obviously definitely disprove objective morality).

Yes, of course it's not about X best religions, but if an objective morality exists we must attribute it to a creator, do we not? Which god is the right god to say they imparted the morality on us, there have been hundreds, if not thousands of gods in human history. Did Zeus do it? Thor? is Yahweh the one? A Hindi god? It's all a circular argument because it can never be proven or disproven.

> if it exists, what causes it?

Evolution and the success of the species would likely be the main drive of an objective morality, if it exists.

> Can an atheist be moral?

This is a question only asked by the religious who have no contact with atheists. Of course atheists can be moral, because as I've said, you don't need a god to be moral. Do you think that everyone that breaks the law is an atheist? A mere 11% of the prison population in the US in 2011 were "No religious preference", which really doesn't even mean that they were even atheists. https://www.statista.com/statistics/234653/religious-affiliation-of-us-prisoners/

This is supposedly a good book on non-religious morals. I personally haven't read it, but you may find it interesting, and it will explain morals better than I ever could. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values

For those who are interested in the back story, I heartily recommend James Comeys' A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership. I'm on the last 40 pages and I really don't want the book to end ... just like an absorbing novel. The insight into how the Justice Department and the FBI work is outstanding. James Comey's voice is authentic and apparent on every page.

I think you're missing the point here.

Many don't like Obama, but is anybody really excited enough about Romney to post pro-Romney stuff? Apparently this guy is . . .

Also: The caricature you described fits Romney supporters quite well. Visit a trailer park sometime.

Obama is a politician; they are all hypocrites for some very interesting reasons. A good book to check out was written by a colleague of mine.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/087779295X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1459084551&sr=1-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=dictionary&dpPl=1&dpID=51dO1tc6GRL&ref=plSrch

How good does it feel to slam the down vote button on my posts? You're totally the best at making your point clear and concise. I can see you've upped your game and are totally not repeating yourself like a broken record.

>How much does the person engage in broad generalizations, saying that all Muslims are X or Y? (Less is better.)

To say that we will not let Muslims into the country temporarily is nothing against the group as a whole, that's simply a statement of physically what will happen. Since your grasp of words is not the greatest, you might want to think about buying that dictionary.

I suppose I would care a lot less about the country if I just sat around and made videos of me playing old video games. Moms basement is already pretty safe so who cares about our borders.

Of course some framers and Courts disagree with me. Hamilton wanted a national government. But he didn't get it. Instead, he and others with the same ideology stripped away the Constitution slowly. Hamilton told the states at the ratifying convention that they were getting a limited government, even though he never had any intention in governing that way.

Check out this book. It will take you through historically how Hamilton and the supreme Court dismantled our union to form a nation.

How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America https://www.amazon.com/dp/1621576353/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_3AIrDbFYBJNFG

I encourage you to read it.

I do thank you for your honesty. At least admit you're a Nationalist, and that contradicts the original constitution, but meshes with the Nationalist of that day.
Of course, no Interpretation of the Constitution would bring you to universal healthcare or even social security but at least you are honest enough to say, you could care less what the Constitution says about that.

Lol, the top two are about as real as Barack being a Kenyan. Oh, and then there is this or this, this book on this scandal, this, this. Yep. Not one. This isn't even a good list, here's a better one. So please, stop with this whitewashing bullshit, you're not doing anyone any favors.

https://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States/dp/0062397346/ref=sr_1_1?crid=26YP0Z8XLW9FE&keywords=the+people%27s+history+of+the+united+states&qid=1571044008&sprefix=the+people%27s+hi%2Caps%2C392&sr=8-1

​

Read this. It'll change your perspective on the things you were taught in history class. It has a great chapter on Columbus, among others.

Wow you have demonstrated you know nothing about the situation, real estate, or the challenges developers faced during that period.

Read a fucking book sometime.

I don't think anyone commenting here has any clue why the electoral college was created. You live in a republic of states, not a democracy. Pick up a book on the formation of the electoral college. I recommend: https://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Need-Electoral-College/dp/1684510139/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Electoral+college&qid=1566560999&s=books&sr=1-1

There are the "platform" type but there are also this type which do a sort of "high heel" effect:

"1Pair Foam Breathable Memory Unisex Invisible Increasing Insoles Height Increased Heightening Heel Lifting Inserts Lifts Elevator Cushions Shoe Pads For Man Women (4.3 cm height)

by ASTRQLE 2.9 out of 5 stars 2 Health and Beauty $8.67$8.67"

He is the 44th but yeah. https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Art-Comeback-Donald-J/dp/0812929640

Normally I'm completely opposed to burning books... But if this abomination calls itself a textbook, then chuck it in the fire. Instead, pick up a copy of A People's History of the United States.

https://www.amazon.com/Merriam-Webster-Dictionary-New-2016/dp/087779295X/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1539810245&sr=8-3&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=Dictionary&dpPl=1&dpID=51l4qdV0vEL&ref=plSrch

I suggest starting with "radical", "make up", and "vile". Then maybe branch out a bit and try "nickname".