Search Results: how could this happen

Do you think people who support democratic socialism are usually thinking independently, or are they mainly influenced by ideological framing?

My answer is indoctrination.

That does not mean every supporter is stupid or incapable of thinking. It means democratic socialism is often presented through a very selective moral and economic framework.

People hear slogans like “tax the rich,” “free healthcare,” “free college,” and “healthcare is a human right,” but they are rarely forced to answer what happens after the slogan.

The Nordic model, for example, is not funded only by billionaires and corporations. Countries like Denmark and Sweden fund large welfare states through broad-based taxation, high consumer taxes like VAT, and heavy taxes on the middle class. That part is usually left out.

There is also opportunity cost. Money directed through government cannot also be used by families, businesses, churches, charities, investors, entrepreneurs, or local communities. Every government program consumes resources that could have been used elsewhere.

And then there are incentives. If you punish productivity, investment, risk-taking, and success too heavily, you eventually get less of those things.

My issue is that many people are taught capitalism’s failures while government failure is ignored. Markets can fail, yes. But bureaucracies fail too. Politicians have incentives. Agencies protect themselves. Programs grow beyond their original purpose.

So yes, I see support for democratic socialism as more indoctrination than independent economic reasoning—not because every supporter is unintelligent, but because the ideology is often taught with the costs, tradeoffs, and government failures conveniently minimized.

yep US sabotaged agreement so war could start again. Now what happens?

White supremacists are notorious spineless sh*t***ds who will do everything they can to maintain their image of "toughness" and "strength." Without it, they're just the losers they always were, are, and always will be.

This is one of the main reasons why demonstrations are so important to them: they provide an opportunity to appear strong and generate publicity by doing absolutely nothing beyond standing there, as though they're hoping to be discovered by a failed real-estate agent turned talent manager who can finally help them fulfill their collective life purpose of becoming third-rate army surplus mannequins.

Nazis taught them well: the more controversy they generate, the more people talk about them, and the more "strong" and "serious" they appear. For this to work, however, they must keep their cool and present themselves as peaceful, upstanding citizens. With a little luck, some immature, boisterous leftists will show up and scream at them while they stand there like discarded d*ldos, allowing them to look "good" by comparison.

So what do you do?

• You can't fight them, because then you become the aggressor disrupting a "peaceful" protest. They'll milk the martyrdom they've supposedly endured for years to come.
• You can't throw water balloons at them because that's legally considered assault, and gawd knows they'll eagerly press charges and parade their boo-boos before the world while crying, "Look what the radical left did to me!"
• You can counter-protest, but that can backfire, making them look "good" and you, look bad.

The best way is to turn their protest into a f*cking joke. Because, we often forget that this is what they are. The seriousness and strenght is entirely superficial and it's always hanging by a thread.

Steal the attention away from them, letting them stand there like the tools that they are while something much more interesting happens.

But with what?