Don't do chores or errands and you can reclaim all of that time to really do something important like watch anime or play video games.
Are you my brother in law? And or my ex-husband? Why are chores so hard to do, its just dishes and trash and cleaning up after yourself when you make a mess or leave a space. I sit and play video games and TV but still do the bare minimum to keep my house mess free. I even shovel when it snows :O
Edit: I think it's funny this a hot take. Here's my F for respects and I hope your homes are clean
he's a millennial. just wiping their own ass is considered hard work.
Since the millennial generation our newest generations working class has been absolutely beaten down into apathy and hopelessness. Anybody who has the willingness and energy do to the hard and dangerous things you need to do to stop this has been tricked into siding with the conservatives for some stupid fucking reason. It’s disappointing.
Thankfully, people like you believe we still can change things.
If the situation were hopeless, their propaganda would be unnecessary
We CAN, certainly. But not with shit like this. This shit is counterproductive if anything.
We ain’t changing shit by convincing people that doing nothing is helping at all.
apathy and ~~hopelessness~~ homelessness. I fixed your typo. My best friends all live with someone else and can't afford rent, including myself.
4chan has a defeatest attitude...
The current situation ain't normal, but this isn't the first time a few have hoarded wealth and used it to pay for boots on everyone else's necks.
Look at how fast FDR turned shit around. We can solve every problem in that meme in under a decade if everyone just united against the wealthy again.
Look at how fast FDR turned shit around. We can solve every problem in that meme in under a decade if everyone just united against the wealthy again.
I think one of the biggest differences between then and now is that the population doesn't live in the same "version of reality." Back with FDR people were all essentially on the same page and could unite as they shared a common understanding of their issues. With all the myriad forms of media and technology working to keep us essentially living in different worlds the capacity to unite has been utterly decimated, by design of course.
:(
Nope, none of that is unique or new...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
Sometimes shit is bad, sometimes it's good. But it can always get better and it can always get worse. A huge problem here is people aren't looking on a long enough timeline while oligarchs can afford to.
There's literally a thing where resource scarcity hinders our ability is plan ahead and that being exploited isn't new.
4chan has a defeatest attitude...
If they didn't they'd spend more time elsewhere.
While I agree with you it is worth noting the wealth disparity has never been this grand.
Never? Rockefeller literally bailed the entire US government out of debt.
I'll not put too fine a point on it and assume you meant "in the modern US," as it's trivial to point out how many times we've had a greater wealth disparity historically and globally.
But even then, we used to literally have company towns that amounted to debtors prisons and any attempts to organize were met with firebombings.
It's not good now for sure, but it's far from the worst it's ever been.
It's not the worst it's been, no. And yes, the post was about the USA so that is what I am referring to. Living conditions have been worse but specifically the difference in monetary wealth is greater now, unless I have been misled.
the difference in monetary wealth is greater now, unless I have been mislead.
That is true, but in the end, it's largely irrelevant. The incidence of poverty matters infinitely more than how large the gap is between the wealthiest and everyone else.
If hypothetically, not one person in the US was pulling down a penny less than $75k/year, that'd mean no one's broke, right? And yet the size of the wealth gap would basically be identical, because the difference between $0 and $75,000 is nothing compared to the difference between $0 or $75,000, and hundreds of billions.
Over the past 100 years, the number of (inflation-adjusted, of course) billionaires per capita in the US increased by a whopping 7x. And yet, poverty was MUCH worse in 1925 than it is in 2025. Also, iirc, there is a positive correlation between average standard of living, and billionaires per capita, in a given country.
Eradicating poverty is the thing to aim for, but directly. And, despite the very common misconception, reducing the wealth of the wealthiest people (especially considering that the majority of that wealth is newly-created valuation, not actual money) will not move the needle toward that goal, at all. Too many people think wealth is a zero-sum thing, and assume the gap being wider than ever must mean that those not at the top have less than ever—that's simply not true.
I feel like I'm listening to Margaret Thatcher explain trickle down economics....
More billionaires means better standard of living for everyone! Stop hating the rich! Redistributing their wealth will make us worse off! [citation required]
I feel like I’m listening to Margaret Thatcher explain trickle down economics…
That's because you're deliberately misreading/twisting it, as exemplified immediately below.
More billionaires means better standard of living for everyone!
Straw man, I didn't assert any causal relationship. I actually did the literal opposite; I refuted someone else's assertion of a causal relationship by pointing out a lack of positive correlation between the incidence of billionaires per capita, and that of poverty in the populace.
If I pointed out that the rise of Internet porn does not correlate with a rise in committed rapes, that's an effective counterargument to someone claiming that porn consumption increases the incidence of rape, but it's not equivalent to me asserting that porn reduces rape.
But I have a feeling you're intelligent enough to understand this; it's just that your bias has clouded your judgment, and you're willfully turning that part of your brain off, because you've decided I'm the Bad Guy, and being the Good Guy is more important to you than being accurate/honest.
Stop hating the rich!
You can hate them if you want, I just pointed out that it's not useful to, and that doing so won't do a thing to lift anyone out of poverty, which should be the actual goal. Loving the poor is a better use of your time than hating the rich.
Redistributing their wealth will make us worse off! [citation required]
Citation required for me having said that, you mean, since, you know, I didn't. Liar.
Eradicating poverty is the thing to aim for, but .... reducing the wealth of the wealthiest people ....will not move the needle toward that goal, at all.
I'm BARELY paraphrasing you. My exaggerations of your statements are so slight they're nearly direct quotes.
You speak like an LLM that was asked to respond as Friedrich Hayek fighting to defend the free market against socialism: convincing and yet devastatingly incorrect.
I’m BARELY paraphrasing you. My exaggerations of your statements are so slight they’re nearly direct quotes.
You're not exaggerating, you're straight up fabricating. By equivocating "reducing the wealth of the wealthiest people …will not move the needle toward [eradicating poverty]" and "Redistributing their wealth will make us worse off!", you've done the equivalent of taking me saying
"Eating oranges will not cure a cold"
and turning it into an accusation that I said
"Eating oranges while you have a cold will make it worse"
Absurd. Either your reading comprehension and/or understanding of fundamental logic are seriously lacking, or you're just a disingenuous jerk. Which is it? There are no other possible explanations for an error this basic.
Maybe you mean Morgan?
Dawg literally forgot about the roman empire lol
The context was USA.
It's written like there is only one way to live. If he hates it then brainstorm, what are some ways out of that life. Maybe the company pays super well but if you're that miserable then maybe it's time to find something else, find a new city a new place. It's going to be hard but if you're that hard up then it's probably time to start looking
Move to Europe, find a job, get unlimited sick days, go get diagnosed with burnout/depression, enjoy the free time!
>Not Have EU Citizenship
>Gets Deported for being a "Public Charge"
This is not the most prosperous time in history. I'd say the 90s had better income equality, which alleviates most of these issues to a degree. The low cost of Chinese goods was a boon, but that later decimated domestic manufacturing and led to the false prosperity of the stock market serving as a final reminder of the prosperity we once all shared in America. Its the reasonable wages of those jobs we're missing now. Housing was less scarce too.
Pre ww2 America was similar to now from what I've read. I've disqualified the 70s and 80s due to inflation. The 50s are pre civil rights act. Perhaps the 60s are in the running? If you dont count the Vietnam war as detrimental to prosperity.
Just wait until you see what happens when people most important lose everything from the wealthy gambling and then die without the resources to get the care they need it will rip your heart out and literally nobody will give a fuck
what came first? Ranch, or cool ranch?
Ranch.
No one is going to start with cool ranch and say "ok, but what if it were less cool?"
Plus, if it had happened like that, cool ranch would be ranch. And ranch would be "less cool ranch".
warm ranch
Ranch dressing started as the house dressing at the Hidden Valley Ranch steakhouse in CA in the 1950’s
Cool Ranch is a Doritos flavor that debuted in the 1980’s
Hey anon, find a physical hobby you like and make some meat space friends to do it with. It's not that complicated.
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
