United States The Left Can't Meme

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Let's hope the monarchists don't see this their smug enough for my tastes

practically speaking they aren't much better. If you look throughout history at how many dynasties the crown changed dynasties as well as forms and functions it's not near as impressive as they make it out to be. They just changed the definitions rather than the names when it suited them and dissociated themselves from all monarchesque governments that go bad. I think the only reason why the term "Feuer" isn't given the same gravitas as "Kaiser" or "Tsar" is because England and France were the victors.

 

[Cherico]

practically speaking they aren't much better. If you look throughout history at how many dynasties the crown changed dynasties as well as forms and functions it's not near as impressive as they make it out to be. They just changed the definitions rather than the names when it suited them and dissociated themselves from all monarchesque governments that go bad. I think the only reason why the term "Feuer" isn't given the same gravitas as "Kaiser" or "Tsar" is because England and France were the victors.

I'm of the opinion that all man made institutions are destroyes by times hour glass sooner or later you just do your best to make things less shit for future generations.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I'm of the opinion that all man made institutions are destroyes by times hour glass sooner or later you just do your best to make things less shit for future generations.

I think you are half right. I've become more and more tribal anarchist because Crap will always hit the fan the best thing that you can do is to be far away from it. I rather risk getting mauled by an animal or robbed by a bandit than stew in my own filth and burn in the inevitable fire.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

A great message from the people who *Checks notes* Worships people who own private jets.

 

[Scottty]

A great message from the people who *Checks notes* Worships people who own private jets.

How does he take his grocery shopping home on a bicycle, huh?

 

[ParadiseLost]

A great message from the people who *Checks notes* Worships people who own private jets.

Those people are idiots.

I don't like cars myself, but you more or less HAVE to own one in most of the US. For me, any real store is 5+ miles away, my workplace is something like 17 miles.

Not to mention that the weather becomes very inhospitable for travel during the summer, especially as a person of Irish-Eastern European descent that burns very easily here in the American south. Even in optimal weather conditions, though, I wouldn't be very presentable at work after a 17 mile bike ride.

An obsession with car-free living is often something you see from particularly stupid urbanites unaware that not everyone can live in a place within public transportation distance from any necessary stop.

Its not that using public transport/biking/walking to get everywhere I need isn't a cool idea with great health and environmental benefits, its just hella impossible for anyone not living within a very specific set of areas, doing jobs within a reasonable distance of one of those areas, with the right family living situation that renders it possible to go without a car.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

How does he take his grocery shopping home on a bicycle, huh?

I mean there's zero chance he has a wife and kids, so he can likely shop by himself.
I can easily ride my bike to the shops and back for myself, maybe 2 people if I am using the BIG bag. But not a family by myself.

 

[Scottty]

An obsession with car-free living is often something you see from particularly stupid urbanites unaware that not everyone can live in a place within public transportation distance from any necessary stop.

And who have never had a sick child that they need to rush to the doctor.

 

[Terthna]

Those people are idiots.

I don't like cars myself, but you more or less HAVE to own one in most of the US. For me, any real store is 5+ miles away, my workplace is something like 17 miles.

Not to mention that the weather becomes very inhospitable for travel during the summer, especially as a person of Irish-Eastern European descent that burns very easily here in the American south. Even in optimal weather conditions, though, I wouldn't be very presentable at work after a 17 mile bike ride.

An obsession with car-free living is often something you see from particularly stupid urbanites unaware that not everyone can live in a place within public transportation distance from any necessary stop.

Its not that using public transport/biking/walking to get everywhere I need isn't a cool idea with great health and environmental benefits, its just hella impossible for anyone not living within a very specific set of areas, doing jobs within a reasonable distance of one of those areas, with the right family living situation that renders it possible to go without a car.

That's because, thanks to the lobbying efforts of big oil and major car manufactures decades before most of us were born, pretty much our entire country is designed from the ground up to be car-centric.

 

[Bear Ribs]

practically speaking they aren't much better. If you look throughout history at how many dynasties the crown changed dynasties as well as forms and functions it's not near as impressive as they make it out to be. They just changed the definitions rather than the names when it suited them and dissociated themselves from all monarchesque governments that go bad. I think the only reason why the term "Feuer" isn't given the same gravitas as "Kaiser" or "Tsar" is because England and France were the victors.

Gonna disagree on two grounds.

Firstly marrying into a new family and thus dynasty isn't really an indictment of a governmental system, and while losing a war can be, it can also just be bad luck. Secondly, if we go on "changed dynasty" as a failure of a government to continue, the US has failed every 4-12 years and Communist governments last a maximum of 40 years or so until the current El Presidente for life dies. Monarchy still wins.

That's because, thanks to the lobbying efforts of big oil and major car manufactures decades before most of us were born, pretty much our entire country is designed from the ground up to be car-centric.

Sadly this. If the car companies had to pay for highways the way the railroad companies have to pay for all their own rails, things would look very different. Every mile of road on the taxpayer dime is basically a subsidy to car companies and they avoid bike infrastructure for the same reason, the keep the big donor car companies happy.

How does he take his grocery shopping home on a bicycle, huh?

Bugs don't weigh very much.

Edit: Might as well throw down some bad memes. Today's theme is "The rich have too much money reee"

So they made less under Trump?

Where were you when it was coal miners in Virginia?

Hmm, not a railway worker but from what I've heard their benefits are pretty posh actually.

 

[Blasterbot]

1st one is ignoring the things driving the price of oil up. but lefties ignoring economic realities is nothing new.

2nd one I agree they totally should. if more tech companies have to deal with that bullshit they will die.

3rd one can't say I know much about the particulars of rail but isn't the main issue that they have to be so efficient or they aren't worth it? also I remember that a lot of their workforce was aging out.

 

[S'task]

the railroad companies have to pay for all their own rails,

What universe are you living in? Railroads were some of the most subsidized transport systems in US history, arguably moreso than normal roads ever have been. In the 19th century railroads were basically subsidized by the Federal government per mile of track they laid, rather than connections, which lead to MASSIVE inefficiencies in rail layout and design, as well as massive amounts of cronyism between the Railroads and the Feds. Even to this day much of the rail system is subsidized and many of the tracks laid that are still in use were laid on the taxpayer dime. Sure they may have to pay for upkeep now, but the Federal government doesn't pay for upkeep on the normal roads either, that's all at state level.

Every mile of road on the taxpayer dime is basically a subsidy to car companies and they avoid bike infrastructure for the same reason,

. . . No, because roads and the need for publicly maintained road systems predate the invention of the automobile by MILLENIA. Building usable roads has been considered a basic part of government responsibility since AT LEAST the fucking ROMANS. The US Constitution, which predates the invention of the automobile by around 100 years, explicitly sets aside one of Congress' powers to be to: "To establish Post Offices and post Roads;". Further, automobiles are just an extension of horse, carts, and the like, all private forms of transportation that were widely used by individuals prior to the development of railroads and ones that utilized public roads, and were usually privately owned by individuals who lived outside of cities (which, as a reminder, prior to the industrial revolution, WAS THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE).

The urban centrism of not owning a private means of transportation is something that ONLY appears once you have the industrial revolution and you start to see the majority of people living in urban areas where they can walk to work and have food shipped in via mass transit. The invention of the car and making it cheap so that even lower class people can afford one and the resulting exodus out of cities into suburbs is more a RETURN to pre-industrial standards of living, and the constant bemoaning of it by people is ridiculous. Living in cities is BAD for human health and wellbeing, humans need a degree of greenspace around them to BE HUMAN. We're not hive dwelling insects for goodness sake, and technologies that allow us to spread and have a degree of person living space and freedom should always be embraced and encouraged. Urban centrism is a soul rotting evil in humanity.

 

[bintananth]

Where were you when it was coal miners in Virginia?

Cheering from the cheap seats because coal is not "lefty-approved high tech green energy" and coal miners tend to be thought of as "blue-collar rural trash" by people with tech jobs would be my guess.

 

[ParadiseLost]

Where were you when it was coal miners in Virginia?

Over 1,000 coal miners in Brookwood, Alabama have been on strike since April 1, the first of its kind four decades. But the historic action has received barely any coverage on cable news: For over 100 days, neither CNN, Fox News, nor MSNBC made a single mention of it. Only now, as the strike reaches its fourth month, has MSNBC begun covering it.
The miners are striking to demand their employer, Warrior Met, honor its promise of a fair contract and the restoration of pay and benefits that were cut in 2016 when the company was failing. The workers voluntarily agreed to a subpar contract at the time, on the condition that their wages would rise along with profits and their new contract would restore the benefits they sacrificed. But Warrior Met has shown no sign of keeping its promise, and is fighting tooth and nail against the strikers. Miners on the picket lines have faced multiple vehicular attacks and Warrior Met has deployed the local police, as well as its own private security, to surveil them constantly.
And yet, cable news has been virtually silent about this critical story of workers fighting back against their exploitative employer. But don't worry: Jeff Bezos' joyride to space received fawning coverage for weeks. Media coverage matters. This should tell you all you need to know about where the media's priorities lie.

Sometimes CEOs are brought to justice. It happened today in West Virginia. Donald L. Blankenship, the CEO of Massey Energy Company -- 29 of whose workers were killed at the Upper Big Branch mine in 2010, the deadliest in mining in the United States in decades -- was convicted today of conspiring to violate mine safety that stemmed from the accident. He faces prison time. Prosecutors showed Blankenship put pursuit of profit -- for himself and his company -- ahead of the safety of the miners who worked for him. The last full year before the explosion, he raked in nearly $18 million – partly by cutting corners on mine safety.

As Secretary of Labor in the 1990s I was in charge of mine safety, among other things. On several occasions I traveled miles underground to where mine workers were extracting coal or other metals. A century ago these jobs were killers, but they've become relatively safe now because of tough laws, frequent inspections, and stiff penalties. Blankenship disregarded the laws, scoffed at inspections, and viewed fines as costs of doing business. He is the most prominent American coal executive ever convicted of a charge connected to the death of miners. Nothing will bring them back, but justice has been done.

What do you think?

He does talk about coal miners.

 

[Bear Ribs]

What universe are you living in? Railroads were some of the most subsidized transport systems in US history, arguably moreso than normal roads ever have been. In the 19th century railroads were basically subsidized by the Federal government per mile of track they laid, rather than connections, which lead to MASSIVE inefficiencies in rail layout and design, as well as massive amounts of cronyism between the Railroads and the Feds. Even to this day much of the rail system is subsidized and many of the tracks laid that are still in use were laid on the taxpayer dime. Sure they may have to pay for upkeep now, but the Federal government doesn't pay for upkeep on the normal roads either, that's all at state level.

The real universe. From Wikipedia you linked to:

Rail subsidies - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Rail subsidies are largest in China ($130 billion), Europe (€73 billion) and India ($35.8 billion), while the United States has relatively small subsidies for passenger rail with freight not subsidized.

Truth is despite the whining and screaming from many people, rail got very, very little in the way of subsidies. A group of train enthusiasts go over it here:

Are freight Railroads still being subsidised by the FED? - Trains Magazine - Trains News Wire, Railroad News, Railroad Industry News, Web Cams, and Forms

Trains magazine offers railroad news, railroad industry insight, commentary on today's freight railroads, passenger service (Amtrak), locomotive technology, railroad preservation and history, railfan opportunities (tourist railroads, fan trips), and great railroad photography.

cs.trains.com

Basically, rail historically got government bonds they paid back at 6% interest, which is a pretty decent rate. Rail also got land grants along the rail in alternating sections which were mostly worthless, all in unimproved and unclaimed territory, much of it in the middle of deserts and scrublands that were more a liability than an asset. And the government price-regulated them if they wanted to sell excess land so it couldn't even generate a decent amount of funds in the sections where they did happen to get a nice chunk.

. . . No, because roads and the need for publicly maintained road systems predate the invention of the automobile by MILLENIA. Building usable roads has been considered a basic part of government responsibility since AT LEAST the fucking ROMANS. The US Constitution, which predates the invention of the automobile by around 100 years, explicitly sets aside one of Congress' powers to be to: "To establish Post Offices and post Roads;". Further, automobiles are just an extension of horse, carts, and the like, all private forms of transportation that were widely used by individuals prior to the development of railroads and ones that utilized public roads, and were usually privately owned by individuals who lived outside of cities (which, as a reminder, prior to the industrial revolution, WAS THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE).

The urban centrism of not owning a private means of transportation is something that ONLY appears once you have the industrial revolution and you start to see the majority of people living in urban areas where they can walk to work and have food shipped in via mass transit. The invention of the car and making it cheap so that even lower class people can afford one and the resulting exodus out of cities into suburbs is more a RETURN to pre-industrial standards of living, and the constant bemoaning of it by people is ridiculous. Living in cities is BAD for human health and wellbeing, humans need a degree of greenspace around them to BE HUMAN. We're not hive dwelling insects for goodness sake, and technologies that allow us to spread and have a degree of person living space and freedom should always be embraced and encouraged. Urban centrism is a soul rotting evil in humanity.

None of that incoherent ranting changes that cars are enormously subsidized by having all their infrastructure almost entirely on the taxpayer's dime while alternate modes of transport aren't.

He does talk about coal miners.

I stand corrected then.

Threadtax: How about this lovely bit of hatred for landlords from the UK?

 

[Blasterbot]

people don't have 4 femurs. and a spine is not long enough to sleep under. what kinda midgets are these people?

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Gonna disagree on two grounds.

Firstly marrying into a new family and thus dynasty isn't really an indictment of a governmental system, and while losing a war can be, it can also just be bad luck. Secondly, if we go on "changed dynasty" as a failure of a government to continue, the US has failed every 4-12 years and Communist governments last a maximum of 40 years or so until the current El Presidente for life dies. Monarchy still wins

Counterpoint, America also doesn't claim to revolve around a figurehead (at least it's not supposed to) as much as a sacred document. Nor do we claim to be an institution that has or will stand a thousand years... it's already bad enough we cling to past glories rather than fix our crap.

Second I've yet to read or see a war that was lost because of a stiff breeze. There has always been a fundamental flaw within the strategy or the country that causes them to lose.

 

[Terthna]

What universe are you living in? Railroads were some of the most subsidized transport systems in US history, arguably moreso than normal roads ever have been. In the 19th century railroads were basically subsidized by the Federal government per mile of track they laid, rather than connections, which lead to MASSIVE inefficiencies in rail layout and design, as well as massive amounts of cronyism between the Railroads and the Feds. Even to this day much of the rail system is subsidized and many of the tracks laid that are still in use were laid on the taxpayer dime. Sure they may have to pay for upkeep now, but the Federal government doesn't pay for upkeep on the normal roads either, that's all at state level.


. . . No, because roads and the need for publicly maintained road systems predate the invention of the automobile by MILLENIA. Building usable roads has been considered a basic part of government responsibility since AT LEAST the fucking ROMANS. The US Constitution, which predates the invention of the automobile by around 100 years, explicitly sets aside one of Congress' powers to be to: "To establish Post Offices and post Roads;". Further, automobiles are just an extension of horse, carts, and the like, all private forms of transportation that were widely used by individuals prior to the development of railroads and ones that utilized public roads, and were usually privately owned by individuals who lived outside of cities (which, as a reminder, prior to the industrial revolution, WAS THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE).

The urban centrism of not owning a private means of transportation is something that ONLY appears once you have the industrial revolution and you start to see the majority of people living in urban areas where they can walk to work and have food shipped in via mass transit. The invention of the car and making it cheap so that even lower class people can afford one and the resulting exodus out of cities into suburbs is more a RETURN to pre-industrial standards of living, and the constant bemoaning of it by people is ridiculous. Living in cities is BAD for human health and wellbeing, humans need a degree of greenspace around them to BE HUMAN. We're not hive dwelling insects for goodness sake, and technologies that allow us to spread and have a degree of person living space and freedom should always be embraced and encouraged. Urban centrism is a soul rotting evil in humanity.

Regardless, the fact that most of our infrastructure and city layouts are designed around the presumption that everyone must own a car is undeniable. And while I agree with you on city life being a bad thing, suburban sprawl also has its own issues.

 

[bintananth]

Second I've yet to read or see a war that was lost because of a stiff breeze. There has always been a fundamental flaw within the strategy or the country that causes them to lose.

Kublai Kahn twice sent invasion fleets to subjugate Japan (1274 and 1281).

The Japanese have a word for the typhoons which wrecked those invasion fleets: 神風 (kamikaze).

 

[Bear Ribs]

people don't have 4 femurs. and a spine is not long enough to sleep under. what kinda midgets are these people?

What, you think people of this maturity level sleep in any position but fetal?

Though... I'm not sure how that spine is holding itself together like that after being cleaned and dried, it's not a solid bone it's a bunch of little ones tied together with tendons and muscles.