Jump to content

Womens tears are making politics - and society - more feminine.


Recommended Posts

A column by Barbara Kay quoted some interesting statistics on male/female preferences about politics and the reasons for them. Women overwhelmingly vote Left while a plurality of men vote Conservative. Women are less supportive of freedom of speech that causes offense than men are, and much more prone to support BIG government that takes care of people, that, in effect, 'mothers' them, with scant regard to costs and budgets. That includes a strong degree of climate alarmism as well as support for minorities and disadvantaged people. Again, without regard to costs. The percentage of women attending university has been rising steadily while male attendance continues to fall, and those women report themselves to be liberal or far left in ever greater numbers compared to men.

On average, “women are more willing to suppress science for moral reasons, and men are more willing to allow offensive or even potentially harmful ideas to be shared. (In time), support for including moral and harm concerns into the scientific and publishing process is likely to increase, and support for academic freedom is likely to decline.”

Women account for 80 per cent of gender studies graduates in the U.S., which are essentially activism boot camps in radical gender ideology. These are the women disproportionately likely to end up as diversity, equity and inclusion administrators in universities, and to be in a position to enforce the illiberal tendencies they sharpened in university.

Taken together, studies show that women in higher education are more likely than men to: believe hate speech is a form of violence; endorse shutting down a speaker; defer to Indigenous “ways of knowing” as equal in value to science; approve censure of scientific findings if they conflict with woke doctrine; and claim it should be illegal to say offensive things about certain minorities.

When female activists meet with verbal opposition — as anyone who watches student protests on YouTube can observe — they are far more likely than men to react emotionally, sobbing or screaming, which effectively shuts down any dialogue, let alone the kind of open, sometimes abrasive debate that typifies male-dominated forums (like the male-dominant university I attended in the early ’60s, where I learned to think critically and fight my polemical corner with evidence, never — ugh! — tears).

A 2011 study found that women cry emotional tears an average of 30-64 times per year, compared to five to 17 times for men. And it’s not the male students who are asking for “a designated place on campus to cry,” as one female student demanded during a cancellation crisis at Georgetown University’s law school.

In his Substack, Richard Hanania, president of the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, tackled the quandary in an insightful recent post titled, “Women’s tears win in the marketplace of ideas.” He notes that it’s considered bad form to make women cry, while neither women nor men have sympathy for men who cry.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Women are less supportive of freedom of speech that causes offense than men are,

The link here is about people speaking on college campuses and being held socially accountable for speech, not actual freedom of speech.

Quote

and much more prone to support BIG government that takes care of people, that, in effect, 'mothers' them, with scant regard to costs and budgets.

This is pretty much just code that means women are more supportive of policy that helps the workers, as opposed to policy that helps the rich. Conservative politicians spend more than other politicians. They're not about "small government." If they were, then they'd be against subsidies and bailouts for the rich, as well as unnecessary wars.

 

I didn't bother reading the rest of this article, which I'm almost positive was written by a 15 year old boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

The link here is about people speaking on college campuses and being held socially accountable for speech, not actual freedom of speech.

It's actual free speech. 

 

13 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

This is pretty much just code that means women are more supportive of policy that helps the workers,

No, it's pretty much code for "women think they need the gov't to solve their problems because it's too tough for them to".

I think those women are wrong, but i get where they learn that they're too repressed and too victimized to stand on their own without gov't. It's a pretty constant message these days from those on the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

It's actual free speech. 

If you don't know what free speech is, sure.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

 

No, it's pretty much code for "women think they need the gov't to solve their problems because it's too tough for them to".

I think those women are wrong, but i get where they learn that they're too repressed and too victimized to stand on their own without gov't. It's a pretty constant message these days from those on the left.

And yet these "small government" conservatives don't mind spending taxes on helping the rich. Interesting how that works.

It's also pretty funny how baby-brains think anyone stands on their own in a society, as if you built the roads you drive on. You're against the government doing things, but you're also against defunding the police, because on some level you know that we ALL rely on government.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

If you don't know what free speech is, sure.

if you want to redefine it to cover  your own bad behavior, sure.

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

And yet these "small government" conservatives don't mind spending taxes on helping the rich. Interesting how that works.

And yet they don't but the left likes to lie about it.  My favorite is when they claim NOT taking excessive money away from the rich is 'spending money on them".

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

It's also pretty funny how baby-brains think anyone stands on their own in a society, as if you built the roads you drive on.

No, those are build with tax dollars. Most of which comes from rich people. You know - the people lefties hate and think we should be eating ;)

What's even MORE amazing is how lefties think that if you wipe out the wealthy somehow that money will still be there ;)

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

You're against the government doing things, but you're also against defunding the police, because on some level you know that we ALL rely on government.

Soooo - your theory is that anyone who wants the gov't doing LESS things must therefore logically want the gov't to do NO things.

Yeah. Thinking isn't your forte is it.

Conservatives want the gov't to focus on it's core responsibilites. That's not the same as 'nothing'. You're thinking of severe libertarians or possibly anarchists.

This isn't going to be another case of me explaining what words mean to you for half a thread before you get it is it?

So sure we want to see proper policing, appropriate military, strong trade and civic relations with other countries, proper stewardship  etc etc. 

Poor girl. You really don't know what you're talking about do you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And yet they don't but the left likes to lie about it.  My favorite is when they claim NOT taking excessive money away from the rich is 'spending money on them".

You can make the argument that conservatives are being consistent when they cut taxes for the rich. But how does one explain subsidies and bailouts for the rich? Endless wars? Banning abortion? Not exactly "small government" there.

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No, those are build with tax dollars. Most of which comes from rich people. You know - the people lefties hate and think we should be eating 

So when you say things like:

Quote

No, it's pretty much code for "women think they need the gov't to solve their problems because it's too tough for them to"

you kinda know you're talking out of your ass. You acknowledge that we all depend on government to have a functioning society.

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

What's even MORE amazing is how lefties think that if you wipe out the wealthy somehow that money will still be there 

Not sure which one of the voices in your head you're arguing with there. I've never heard anyone say they want to wipe out the rich. Maybe commies want that, though they're a pretty small faction of the Left these days.

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Soooo - your theory is that anyone who wants the gov't doing LESS things must therefore logically want the gov't to do NO things.

No, I'm saying you're stupid for saying people vote this way or that way because they depend on government. Society as a whole depends on government. When you say you're against defunding the police, you're acknowledging that we depend on police to keep society functioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

You can make the argument that conservatives are being consistent when they cut taxes for the rich. But how does one explain subsidies and bailouts for the rich?

depends on which ones. Give me some specific examples and i'll explain them. Most times bailouts aren't for the rich, its' to prevent mass layoffs. But - throw out a few case studies.

7 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Endless wars?

Endless wars don't benefit the rich. Hell trump never even got involved in a war and biden already has.

7 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Banning abortion?

Abortion got banned to protect the rich? LOL - you'll have to spell that one out for me.

7 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Not exactly "small government" there.

Everything you mentioned is small gov't except for banning abortion. Which didn't happen. It was just ruled not constitutionally protected.

 

7 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

So when you say things like:

you kinda know you're talking out of your ass. You acknowledge that we all depend on government to have a functioning society.

no, what i said was accurate. Again - suggesting the gov't should foucs on it's core duties is not the same as same as saying they should do nothing. And women want the gov't to do MOAR because they're not comfortable making those decisions themselves.

 

7 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

 

Not sure which one of the voices in your head you're arguing with there. I've never heard anyone say they want to wipe out the rich.

Really. You've never heard the term 'eat the rich". 

Well - i guess you've lied this far, you might as well lie the rest of the way

7 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Maybe commies want that, though they're a pretty small faction of the Left these days.

THe left wants that, and they're not terribly shy about it.

7 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

No, I'm saying you're stupid for saying people vote this way or that way because they depend on government.

well you're retarded then. They even do studies on it. People who don't depend on the gov't want the gov't to focus on only those things the gov't can do that people can't. Like a military - i can't buy my own f-16 or abrams tank. we need a central organized justice system. Etc etc.

I CAN decide what pronouns i'm going to use :)

 

7 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Society as a whole depends on government.

Society isn't an end user. People are.  People don't "depend" on the gov't, people have discovered that there's a small number of things a 'gov't' can do better than just individuals can. So - where collectively it makes sense we vest a gov't with that power to administrate a joint interest.

That does NOT mean that those people have given up control of their lives to the gov't. Or that they want to.

Women just want to give up MOAR control of their lives on average. Apparently. They'd like the gov't to handle their lives and tell them what to do more than men do,  on average

7 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

When you say you're against defunding the police, you're acknowledging that we depend on police to keep society functioning.

Well no. We absolutely COULD go back to each of us wearing a gun and dealing with criminals the 'old school way'.

What you're REALLY saying is that a centralized professional police force is probably the best way to deal with that and it's one area that the gov't can do a better job than just the individuals can. 

Again - you're playing this litte dishonest game where if you want the gov't to do ANYTHING it must mean you should support the gov't doing EVERYTHING.

Nope. THe gov't should do as little as possible and focus on what it can do best.  And no more. Women want to take that farther and have the gov't make decisions for them and tell people what to do They apparently see the gov't as more of a daddy figure than men do.

Fun fact - germans also are the same way, polling much higher than most countries when asked if the gov' should be running their lives and making decisions. I found that surprising. Doesn't mean anything here but it's interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

The link here is about people speaking on college campuses and being held socially accountable for speech, not actual freedom of speech.

Not at all. Not even close. What does the word "prohibit" mean to you?

Quote

This is pretty much just code that means women are more supportive of policy that helps the workers, as opposed to policy that helps the rich.

Again, not even in the ballpark. Now I know why someone was able to con you into joining a terrorist group. 

There's no such thing as liberals "just wanting to help the workers" lol. Do you think a large welfare state "helps the workers"? It just means they pay more taxes.

Do you think massive illegal immigration helps the workers? It's the exact opposite. Allowing 2 million people into the country who are mostly going to work under the table undercuts American workers who need to earn enough to pay taxes. It doesn't help at all. It hurts.

Where do you think illegal immigrants live? Do they move to Pelosi's neighbourhood and drive up the cost of mansions? Or do they compete for low-income housing and drive up the prices there?

The net effect of illegal immigration is that the Pelosis of the world can hire cheap labour and rent out their slums for more money. She's not the friend of workers at all, and you were over 15 you'd know that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

If you don't know what free speech is, sure.

And yet these "small government" conservatives don't mind spending taxes on helping the rich. Interesting how that works.

It's also pretty funny how baby-brains think anyone stands on their own in a society, as if you built the roads you drive on. You're against the government doing things, but you're also against defunding the police, because on some level you know that we ALL rely on government.

How ridiculous.  Explain how taxes are used to benefit the rich.  I’d love to hear your economic ideas.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Most times bailouts aren't for the rich, its' to prevent mass layoffs.

So.... is that big government? No, of course not, because conservatives do it.

Even Trump said that Elon Musk wouldn't be rich without subsidies and bailouts. Which is kinda funny, because while true, the same goes for Trump. He went bankrupt plenty of times, but was always bailed out because he's part of the upper-class.

Why is that ok, but spending money on social programs for the workers is BIG government?

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Endless wars don't benefit the rich. Hell trump never even got involved in a war and biden already has.

Abortion got banned to protect the rich? LOL - you'll have to spell that one out for me.

Everything you mentioned is small gov't except for banning abortion. Which didn't happen. It was just ruled not constitutionally protected.

War benefits the rich because corporations get to sell weapons, do private security contracting, and rebuild infrastructure. War drastically affects the economy in a way that benefits the rich.

Trump didn't start any new wars, but he did continue the wars that were already going on, plus he increased drone strikes.

I brought up abortion because this is another thing the government does that conservatives never claim is BIG government. But yeah, the reason conservatives want to ban abortion is because it keeps people poor. It's part of the overall philosophy of conservatism, which is about maintaining hierarchy.

We're all fine with the government doing stuff, just as long as we agree with the stuff the government is doing. But right-wing politicians can't admit that they want the government to lift up the rich while pushing down the poor. So instead, they just selectively use the "small government" lie. 

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Really. You've never heard the term 'eat the rich". 

???

Boy, you're really taking those lyrics seriously, eh?

Bro! You never heard "Anarchy in the UK," dude?! Leftists want anarchy in the UK!!

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

well you're retarded then. They even do studies on it. People who don't depend on the gov't want the gov't to focus on only those things the gov't can do that people can't. Like a military - i can't buy my own f-16 or abrams tank. we need a central organized justice system. Etc etc.

And I guess we don't need roads. Everyone can just use a jetpack. And we don't need a board of health. We'll just, I don't know, say a prayer before eating. And if a train derailment destroys a town, it's their own tough luck.

Honestly, you sound like a child who doesn't realize he's depending on his parents to not die.

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Women just want to give up MOAR control of their lives on average. Apparently. They'd like the gov't to handle their lives and tell them what to do more than men do,  on average

Can you give me some examples of this?

Banning things like abortion, drugs, prostitution, porn, and books are good examples of government controlling our lives. I say adults should be able to do what they want with their own bodies. But those are things that you fascists want to ban.

What exactly do leftists want that you'd say is government intrusion into our lives?

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Fun fact - germans also are the same way, polling much higher than most countries when asked if the gov' should be running their lives and making decisions. I found that surprising. Doesn't mean anything here but it's interesting.

I'd have to see those polls because I'm positive you're lying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

So.... is that big government? No, of course not, because conservatives do it.

which conservatives did it.

41 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Even Trump said that Elon Musk wouldn't be rich without subsidies and bailouts. Which is kinda funny, because while true, the same goes for Trump. He went bankrupt plenty of times, but was always bailed out because he's part of the upper-class.

That's where that 'green energy' money goes. You guys on the left LIKE that stuff.

41 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Why is that ok, but spending money on social programs for the workers is BIG government?

depends on the program.

41 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

War benefits the rich because corporations get to sell weapons, do private security contracting, and rebuild infrastructure. War drastically affects the economy in a way that benefits the rich.

Don't be dumb. The vast vast vast majority of the rich don't have anythign to do with weapons manufacture and the companies that do are publically traded blue chips - which means the people who make money are the teachers and nurses etc who have them in their pension funds.

 

41 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Trump didn't start any new wars, but he did continue the wars that were already going on, plus he increased drone strikes.

Nope - no wars. nor did he increase drone strikes. Sorry.

41 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

I brought up abortion because this is another thing the government does that conservatives never claim is BIG government.

It's not. It's neither big gov't or small gov't. Unless the gov't decides to run the abortion clinic. I dont think you get what 'big gov't' is.

41 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

But yeah, the reason conservatives want to ban abortion is because it keeps people poor. It's part of the overall philosophy of conservatism, which is about maintaining hierarchy.

Stupidest comment you've made. ANd it was up against some pretty serious competition :)

41 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

We're all fine with the government doing stuff, just as long as we agree with the stuff the government is doing. But right-wing politicians can't admit that they want the government to lift up the rich while pushing down the poor. So instead, they just selectively use the "small government" lie. 

They can't admit it beacuse it's a lie and conservatives prefer the truth. The left prefers lies - so YOU have no problem saying it :)  :)  

41 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

 

Boy, you're really taking those lyrics seriously, eh?

Bro! You never heard "Anarchy in the UK," dude?! Leftists want anarchy in the UK!!

T'aint where it comes from kiddo :)

41 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

And I guess we don't need roads. Everyone can just use a jetpack. And we don't need a board of health. We'll just, I don't know, say a prayer before eating. And if a train derailment destroys a town, it's their own tough luck.

Aww look at you - repeating lies and bad arguments that have already been shot down as if they'll magically be true :)

I guess you're a little pissed off that the survey shows women are more dependent so you're trying to suggest somehow we're all equally dependent.

Nope.

41 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

 

Can you give me some examples of this?

Sure. But you can look it up just as easily.

41 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Banning things like abortion, drugs, prostitution, porn, and books are good examples of government controlling our lives.

So's banning murder arson and rape.  but it should be kept to a minimum. Of course the gov't allows lots of drugs, but some are deemed too dangerous. Of course prostitution can lead to female exploitation so it's historically been banned. And of course if you happen to believe that at some point a fetus is a human being abortion becomes murder at that point - and we can probably agree murder is bad.

So - if you disagree with where the gov't draws those lines or whatever you can make your case and get the law changed or thrown out. That doesn't mean that youre 'dependent' on the gov't for your life.

 

41 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

I say adults should be able to do what they want with their own bodies. But those are things that you fascists want to ban.

No you don't - if i say i want to carry a gun to protect my body you freak out.  AND you'd love for the gov't to have control over what i do with my money, what i can work at, what i can say, etc etc.

You don't give a fig for rights. You just want stuff for you.

41 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

What exactly do leftists want that you'd say is government intrusion into our lives?

Pretty much eveyrthing leftists want is an intrusion into people's lives. Leftists want to dictate how culture evolves by forcing people to do what THEY believe is correct by force of law and to cancel anyone who disagrees.

41 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

I'd have to see those polls because I'm positive you're lying.

Are you ? - i think you just WANT me to be lying but suspect i'm right. :)   i don't know why, i was clear it had nothing to do with this it was just interesting,  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Americana Antifa said:

Taxes are used to benefit everyone. How do you think we pay for police, roads, bridges, and so on?

People earn money through work.  They give a portion of those earnings to the state to pay for government services.  Rich people pay more of their earnings, including as a percentage of income, than middle class or low income people. Unemployed people don’t fund these services.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Taxes are used to benefit everyone. How do you think we pay for police, roads, bridges, and so on?

The rich could pay for their own roads, police, bridges etc. And historically did.  Then they can even charge tolls and such :)  So it benefits them less. The rich would be just fine with no taxes and they provide the infrastructure. It's everyone else who wouldn't be happy with that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2023 at 12:58 PM, I am Groot said:

A column by Barbara Kay quoted some interesting statistics on male/female preferences about politics and the reasons for them. Women overwhelmingly vote Left while a plurality of men vote Conservative. Women are less supportive of freedom of speech that causes offense than men are, and much more prone to support BIG government that takes care of people, that, in effect, 'mothers' them, with scant regard to costs and budgets. That includes a strong degree of climate alarmism as well as support for minorities and disadvantaged people. Again, without regard to costs. The percentage of women attending university has been rising steadily while male attendance continues to fall, and those women report themselves to be liberal or far left in ever greater numbers compared to men.

On average, “women are more willing to suppress science for moral reasons, and men are more willing to allow offensive or even potentially harmful ideas to be shared. (In time), support for including moral and harm concerns into the scientific and publishing process is likely to increase, and support for academic freedom is likely to decline.”

Women account for 80 per cent of gender studies graduates in the U.S., which are essentially activism boot camps in radical gender ideology. These are the women disproportionately likely to end up as diversity, equity and inclusion administrators in universities, and to be in a position to enforce the illiberal tendencies they sharpened in university.

Taken together, studies show that women in higher education are more likely than men to: believe hate speech is a form of violence; endorse shutting down a speaker; defer to Indigenous “ways of knowing” as equal in value to science; approve censure of scientific findings if they conflict with woke doctrine; and claim it should be illegal to say offensive things about certain minorities.

When female activists meet with verbal opposition — as anyone who watches student protests on YouTube can observe — they are far more likely than men to react emotionally, sobbing or screaming, which effectively shuts down any dialogue, let alone the kind of open, sometimes abrasive debate that typifies male-dominated forums (like the male-dominant university I attended in the early ’60s, where I learned to think critically and fight my polemical corner with evidence, never — ugh! — tears).

A 2011 study found that women cry emotional tears an average of 30-64 times per year, compared to five to 17 times for men. And it’s not the male students who are asking for “a designated place on campus to cry,” as one female student demanded during a cancellation crisis at Georgetown University’s law school.

In his Substack, Richard Hanania, president of the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, tackled the quandary in an insightful recent post titled, “Women’s tears win in the marketplace of ideas.” He notes that it’s considered bad form to make women cry, while neither women nor men have sympathy for men who cry.

 

The problem with this post is that it falsely that male behaviour is normal and ideal. It also falsely implies that men are cool, rational and non-emotional when nothing could be further from the truth.  
 

Just look at January 6: predominantly male  

Just look at all the clearly batsh-t conspiracy nonsense. Conspiracy beliefs are a clear example of emotional thinking overpowering logic and reason  

Just look at the fact that nearly ALL mass shooters and terrorists are male

Men are just rash and emotional as women if not more so.  Especially so-called “macho men” who adopt a persona based on confrontation and interpersonal conflict and displays of anger. It’s just that men’s emotional outbursts are considered acceptable while women’s aren’t.
 

A General Patton-type male leader in company or boardroom who shouts and pounds his fist on the table and threatens to kick people’s ass is considered “strong and powerful”, “bold” a “natural leader” yet he is more emotional than a woman who simply tears up briefly when telling a heartbreaking story. And yet many would see it otherwise.  Patton famously put his pistol to the head of one of his own PTSD soldiers in a hospital and told him he would blow his brains out if he didn’t get out of bed and back to the front. Imagine what people would say if a woman dod that. She would be relieved of command not celebrated as a “tough hero”
 

And on the “freedom” front it is men who overwhelmingly support foreign wars and heavy-handed policing tactics, harsh criminal penalties, etc. “Tough on crime” type laws which are overwhelmingly supported by men are often used as an example where emotions such as anger and revenge are given priority over more effective, fact-based rehabilitation programs  

Men are also easily emotionally manipulated by appeals to patriotism, flags, national anthem etc to the point that they will oppose most criticism of police brutality, civilian casualties etc. een while they are completely unsympathetic to stories of human suffering like kids in cages, migrant children drowning, children maimed by US bombs etc. 

 

Look at the blatantly criminal Iraq invasion which was overwhelmingly supported by men despite clear evidence that the case for war had no merit and was in fact fabricated by the White House. The people who supported the war were extremely rash and emotional in their decision and in their attacks on people who opposed the war. 20 years later, those same predominantly male war supporters when told of the terrible human toll of that war are now like “meh whatever not my problem”.  Needlessly killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in a fit of anger is manly and acceptable but, feeling sympathy for those killed is weak and womanly. 

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Not at all. Not even close. What does the word "prohibit" mean to you?

Freedom of Speech = The right to speak or write without government oppression.

Not Freedom of Speech = The right to a platform or the right to speak or write without consequences.

 

13 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

There's no such thing as liberals "just wanting to help the workers" lol. Do you think a large welfare state "helps the workers"? It just means they pay more taxes.

And what happens with taxes in a welfare state? I'll give you a hint. They're not spent on subsidies and bailouts for the rich.

Saying that a welfare state just means higher taxes is such a baby-brain take. The Nordic countries have the highest living standards in the world. Higher taxes didn't put the workers into poverty, rather it made healthcare more affordable for the workers. It also reduced crime because, obviously, less poverty means less crime.

Quote

Do you think massive illegal immigration helps the workers? It's the exact opposite. Allowing 2 million people into the country who are mostly going to work under the table undercuts American workers who need to earn enough to pay taxes. It doesn't help at all. It hurts.

A welfare state doesn't mean no borders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

People earn money through work.  They give a portion of those earnings to the state to pay for government services.  Rich people pay more of their earnings, including as a percentage of income, than middle class or low income people. Unemployed people don’t fund these services.  

Cool, but you asked how taxes help rich people. I explained that they help everyone. I don't know what this bizarre follow-up has to do with anything.

Are you saying we should reduce unemployment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The rich could pay for their own roads, police, bridges etc. And historically did.  Then they can even charge tolls and such :)  So it benefits them less. The rich would be just fine with no taxes and they provide the infrastructure. It's everyone else who wouldn't be happy with that.

 

Now I'm positive that you're a 15 year old libertarian incel. Aside from the fact that this would be an utter hellscape of a world, there's a reason we don't do things that way anymore. In this comic book villain society you're describing, the workers would be dirt poor, many of them unable to afford basic health needs. Workers would be dropping dead far too often to build the infrastructure we need for a society. There would also be way more crime, since more poverty means more crime.

Also, don't forget about the bears. There WILL be bears.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Americana Antifa said:

Now I'm positive that you're a 15 year old libertarian incel.

Why not? You've been wrong about everything else so you might as well go all in with the dumb :)

Just now, Americana Antifa said:

Aside from the fact that this would be an utter hellscape of a world,

Ummm - it WAS the world for much of it for thousands of years.

Just now, Americana Antifa said:

there's a reason we don't do things that way anymore. In this comic book villain society you're describing, the workers would be dirt poor, many of them unable to afford basic health needs.

Yes. Well - maybe not THAT bad but generally yes.  Which is why.... taxes benefit the poor. The poor pay very little of the tax money, the rich pay most of the tax money, and so the poor get access to things they couldn't possibly afford while the rich basically get what they would have had anyway (if they're lucky).

Just now, Americana Antifa said:

Workers would be dropping dead far too often to build the infrastructure we need for a society.

Well that's just dumb.  We went thousands of years like that and guess what - infrastructure got built.  But - its use was controlled and it was  largely owned by local lords and minor nobles and yes - the poor suffered.

That's why... taxes.... benefit... the... poor.... not..... the....rich.

 

Just now, Americana Antifa said:

There would also be way more crime, since more poverty means more crime.

No - if the rich own the police there tends to be a lot less need for annoying trials and such :)  Criminals tend to go bye bye.  Sure - you get the odd 'robin hood' but the reason that story sticks out is it's so rare.

Just now, Americana Antifa said:

Also, don't forget about the bears. There WILL be bears.

Canada is already  basically 7 hockey rinks surrounded by bears :)

 

So - to sum up - your claim that taxes are for the benefit of the rich is hogpoo. It's to benefit the poor, and middle class. Now - we can probably agree that a society where the poor and the middle class have access unfettered to infrastructure like that is desirable. But - lets not pretend that it's for the benefit of the rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Freedom of Speech = The right to speak or write without government oppression.

Not Freedom of Speech = The right to a platform or the right to speak or write without consequences.

Blah, blah, blah...

Women are in favour of "prohibiting" speech

Whether you interpret that to mean via "their own violence" or "legislation", they're still against free speech, genius.

Quote

And what happens with taxes in a welfare state? I'll give you a hint. They're not spent on subsidies and bailouts for the rich.

It's still not for "the workers". 

I'm not going to bother explaining the importance of a manufacturing base, but even you know that (other) people want to live where there are good jobs nearby. Communities thrive around large businesses. 

Quote

Saying that a welfare state just means higher taxes is such a baby-brain take.

OMG you're fun to deal with.

Quote

The Nordic countries have the highest living standards in the world. Higher taxes didn't put the workers into poverty, rather it made healthcare more affordable for the workers. It also reduced crime because, obviously, less poverty means less crime.

What works in those areas isn't going to work in areas where 2M people can just waltz across the border and take, take, take. 

Quote

A welfare state doesn't mean no borders.

FN people on reserves in Canada live in a welfare state. The areas where they receive the most money are the worst off. 

Edited by WestCanMan
added "on reserves"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

What works in those areas isn't going to work in areas where 2M people can just waltz across the border and take, take, take. 

Why do you claim that’s the situation here but not in Scandinavia?  Their programs are more generous and they’re closer to a lot more borders and developing countries than we are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Cool, but you asked how taxes help rich people. I explained that they help everyone. I don't know what this bizarre follow-up has to do with anything.

Are you saying we should reduce unemployment?

You made it sound like the rich people get more back from the state than they give to the state in funds.  It’s the opposite.  If you tax people too far, the ones best positioned to leave, the rich, will leave.  Their money buys a lot of services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,695
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Linda Teskey
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Jeary earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...