Sturdy trees are good in the city, since they are low upkeep and very good for air quality and shade.

Sturdy trees WOULD be good for the city, yeah. Unfortunately we've decided to, in basically every major city (at least here in NA and I suspect other places), plant non-native trees that have low survival rates and are basically all male. Being male, they tend to also shit pollen basically everywhere. I'd imagine you could deal with the fruit falling to the ground in a number of ways, as well. Could put some canopy underneath the fruiting trees, as to collect the fruit more easily, you could just pay people to come and collect enough of the fruit for use in things like applesauce that the rest of the fruit really presents no issue as far as just sort of rotting and draining into the ground. You could set up a bunch of easy disposal compost boxes every couple feet, so you can just sweep all the fruit up and throw it into that.

I suspect a larger problem would probably be that inside of the city the fruit would be exposed to more than an acceptable amount of brake dust, including that which drains into the planter box, and would maybe not get enough light, but I think those are generally problems we should be solving anyways since they don't disappear just because we decide not to plant fruit trees. Brake dust on the fruit or carcinogens inside the fruit means that those things are also going to be going into your lungs.

Why not just use a big shotgun for the smaller stuff, skeet shooting style? I dunno how to really deal with much larger drones, but a shotgun should be able to deal with most human sized drone targets pretty easily

That's kind of assuming they can't just find any other freak to take command while doing everything the foundations and conservative PACs and corporate donors want. I don't actually think trump really has all that much charisma beyond his slightly flamboyant mannerisms and his weird accent that I've never heard anywhere else. They could pretty easily replace him with some other brainworm candidate, probably get someone way younger and slightly more well-spoken, lose maybe like, 10% of the diehard trump supporters, and then gain back those numbers and more after running their candidate for like five months and trying to ride with slightly more centrist appeal.

Trump isn't like, the end of this, he's just a kind of canary in the coal mine for what's to come, because the conditions which created him still exist and are actively worsening pretty much all the time. It's not gonna end with him.

I just mean that I don't think they were a good faith interlocutor. Probably if I were to put a specific explanation on it, I'd say that they are probably tired of having the same argument over and over again and being corrected repetitively, to the point where they're not genuinely engaging anymore, I've seen that a lot. Especially with how quickly they backed out but also still left a comment. I dunno if that level of bad faith would be considered trolling in the strictest sense, but I would probably still classify it as such.

I believe they are what is known as a "low effort troll"

I mean we do have a pretty good indication of a quite large impending factor which may cause a lot of them to collapse in the coming years, and which could collectively be attributed to them pretty well, especially within the last 50 years.

Do you want to give me any real material or are we done here? You have class in like two hours dude you're gonna be late

but the government has to be pretty authoritarian in order to pull it off

I dunno if that's a super necessary element, really. I think they could probably get off better, actually, if they had a more lenient prison system, and, say, didn't execute people for minor weed possession or like, being gay. But then I also think their economy relies on a large portion of oppressed migrant labor, if I remember right? I dunno, somebody fact check me on that

I mean yeah, but I'm not sure we won't just poison pill them again as soon as the metronome swings back around and keeps us from having anything nice.

So, people can make the whole like, oh, this is a different context, kyle is joking, whatever whatever, right, and that's both true and a fine argument to make. But I also think when we make this like, freedom as a principle argument, right, free speech as a principle, argument, it isn't necessarily hypocritical.

We're just not prioritizing freedom, prioritizing free speech, as the highest possible value that trumps all other values. I think kind of by necessity, it can't be. The idea of free speech is logically incoherent if you take it to the extreme, because you could just define speech as being anything. Harmful acts, smearing poop on the bathroom walls, whatever. So you have to put a limit on it, and then those external values are going to be what places the limit on it.

Those external values of "I agree with kyle gass" vs "I agree with dave chapelle". Agreeing with either argument, beyond that, thinking either argument, had in the public sphere, is worthwhile, that's what has to define the limits of speech and freedom and what has to drive the outlook on it. I might oppose the poop swastika in the rec center bathroom, but I might think the ACAB poop smear in the nazi bar bathroom is maybe okay, even if it's a little misguided or kind of just stupid or whatever.

There has to be a core value there. It's not necessarily hypocritical to believe that political violence can be called for, or justified against your foes necessarily, and then think that the same thing shouldn't be done to you on the nature of your ideology strictly being better. If my foes are basically just evil, straight up, yeah, probably at the very least stop them from like, having undue economic influence, which depending on who you ask, is gonna be some form of economic violence by nature of stripping away their agency or property or whatever. That doesn't necessarily strike me as hypocritical, or not believing in equal rights or anything, it just strikes me as pragmatic.

All of those things can be done outside of my house, so I don't really see any reason why not to. Beard trim, blam, here's a razor, sandwich, here's that shit, here's a bottle of water, the hose is over there, here's some soap, blam. Even if I'm cooking up the most diabolical and insane homeless person of all time, I can still fulfill all of those requests while also keeping them outside, doing very little, and maybe telling them to also fuck off after if I'm a psycho.

The rest of this is gonna mostly be venting, so you can safely ignore it if you don't care.

People in america are totally cooked on homelessness, even though they're, on average, metaphorically inches away from it at any given time. Homeless shelters in america mostly are horrible places to go where your shit will be stolen and they will do nothing. They're bad for children, they're full of drugs, and very frequently they have curfews, rules against having animals or pets, rules requiring that you go to religious ceremonies, etc. Homeless people aren't just like, insane illogical transients. I mean they kind of are, but there's also a reason for why they do the things that they do, that includes maybe knocking on the door of a random suburb.

I would actually find it more likely in this situation that this random person would probably want to use my toilet since there are no fucking public toilets in america, especially as private businesses will deny use of their restrooms to people who look homeless. Then people get arrested for public defecation, urination, or nudity because there's nowhere else to go, obviously there's also mental health, and then all you see is how some guy on the street on fent gets arrested with his pants around his ankles and his asscheeks covered in shit and you think "wow that guy's crazy" and have no further thoughts. Context is eradicated.

Give someone in america the slightest advantage over the homeless, a shitty suburban flat, with a lower rent, that they spend two thirds or more of their income on, including roommates, and they will still somehow find a way to spit on the homeless after riding the bus into town every day cause they can't afford a car. They will still live their lives in fear and they will still come to hate the homeless because somehow the person basically making negative income is not able to afford soap or a high-fiber diet.

It's the "Oh, well, it's not my problem, that sucks for them, but I'm still allowed to be offended by it." sort of mentality. You can give them every reason under the sun why hating the homeless doesn't make any sense, why hating the homeless is immoral, why they don't deserve it, how they are products of their environment. Still people will desperately cling to it. It makes me understand how racism occurs, I suppose, because it's the same phenomena. "Ah, well, I understand all of the stats about racism, but this particular member of this particular racial minority, I still hate them personally for acting in line with the statistical average of their group.". Insanity. It's as though it's all just abstract thought goop that has no bearing on anyone's life, or that somehow I should be the exception to it.

I think it's gotta be a functional adaptation, or something. Maybe they can prevent themselves from going insane and becoming nihilists if they just suddenly become individualists and objectivists as soon as it becomes convenient, or something. It is not that hard to conceive of a reality in which the person cutting you off in traffic is rushing to the hospital, or, a reality in which they, maybe naively but understandably want to enjoy their expensive car while they still can, or, maybe a reality in which they're just panicking because they're late to work or something.

I am an introvert, I am awkward, I hate hanging around people and talking to people. Even I can talk to the homeless when they need someone to talk to, and reluctantly give them money, and rides to places when they ask, since it would otherwise be like two hours and twelve dollars of travel, bus stops, a transfer station, travel, more bus stops, before they get across town to do a fairly basic errand. The social fabric is falling apart. Please be nice, it is not that hard, it costs very little, it happens infrequently, and very possibly if some of you extroverted assholes picked up some slack instead of making things harder for the most maligned, I could go back to my cave.

US oil production hits all-time high

Executive action ordering the closure of border cutting asylum claims in half (according to FOX News)

Aren't these generally seen as bad things, though?

I'll also say a lot of this list is basically just routine infrastructure maintenance funding, which was arguably necessary, but I would much rather see a combating of the more institutional problems that led to this infrastructure being in such a state of disrepair in the first place. Expanding a highway, for example, not really something I would say is a great accomplishment. The economic citations are things that I find kind of suspicious more generally, because I'm familiar with the amount of laundering economists can accomplish when they really put their pussy into it. Post-pandemic recovery, for example, I can think of a couple ways to spin that, most of them involve us having taken a very large hit from the pandemic compared to other countries because we had a shit ass pandemic response relative to other countries. Violent crime dropping from 2020 is gonna be a fuckin no brainer, for example, like obviously that's gonna be the case, I don't think you can really attribute that to a biden presidency.

Eliminate the padding in this list and back up what appear to be the stronger points and it would be more serious. As it stands, this is more just kind of a gish gallop. You're just popping a bigass list with no citations and then that's gonna look more credible while your opposition can't do much in the face of it without looking like they're nitpicking or denying reality, even though you don't have any citations. It might be cynical, but I've been on the internet before, so I bet if I push back at all, you're just gonna tell me to look into it further myself, and that it's not your job to educate me even though you're the one who has the burden of proof for making these claims, like how tankies tell me to read theory whenever I ask them questions about books they've supposedly read biblically and know so well.

In any case, a lot of these aren't really fighting against the idea that the democrats just end up as a controlled opposition band-aid which barely does anything before fascism creeps back in and fucks something else up in our shitty pendulum system. It's not really fighting against that claim, which I would say is the core nihilistic, apathetic claim that has to be disputed before people can be convinced that their vote will do something.