21y.o 🇦🇺 for a song named 'Piano Man', the dude with the harmonica wont SHUT THE FUCK UP
Joined February 2022
- Tweets29K
- Following84
- Followers86
- Likes29K
Dr Soupcan retweeted
Okay, like you're five.
You have money.
You want a toy.
You don't have enough money for the toy.
Does the toy store owe you the toy?
No.
Now imagine someone offers you $10 to clean their room.
You want $20.
Do they owe you $20 because you want it?
No.
You can say no, find someone who pays more, or learn to do something people will pay more for.
And if someone else has $1,000, does that mean they owe you their money?
Still no.
See? Most five-year-olds can understand this.
Which makes it baffling that grown men struggle with it.
But that's what happens when you switch off your brain and let your emotions do the thinking.
Wanting something doesn't make someone else responsible for providing it.
PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME LIKE I’M FIVE.
When someone can’t afford rent, we immediately hear:
“Stop buying fast food.”
“Skip the $7 latte.”
“Make coffee at home.”
“Cut out avocado toast.”
But when a company says it can’t afford to pay workers enough to live?
Nobody says:
“Maybe buy one fewer private jet.”
“Skip the third yacht.”
“Perhaps don’t buy another mansion this year.”
Why is the person struggling always expected to sacrifice the little things they enjoy, while the people at the top are never told to sacrifice anything?
I’m genuinely trying to understand the logic.
Dr Soupcan retweeted
On the issue of democracy, I’m opposed. But if we insist on keeping the vote, we should at least stop pretending every ballot deserves the same weight. Here’s my proposal, which we can call "Weighted Suffrage."
Every citizen starts with 100 points. Your ballot in a federal election counts as (points ÷ 100) of a vote. Points are adjusted as follows:
Stake in the system:
— Paying at the top federal income tax tier: +50
— Net contributor (federal taxes paid exceed means-tested benefits received): +25
— Net recipient (benefits received exceed taxes paid): −60
— Social Security & Medicare don’t count on either side. You were forced to pay in; drawing out isn’t dependency.
Judgment:
— Age 18–24: −25
— Age 40–64: +15
— Age 65+: +25
— Passing a civics exam (same one we give immigrants): +20
Conduct:
— Each felony conviction: −40
— Each misdemeanor in the past 10 years: −10
Skin in the game:
— Military or first-responder service: +15
— Parent or legal guardian of a minor: +10 per kid
— Federal employee or contractor: −20. (You don’t get to vote for your own raise with a full-weight ballot.)
The floor is zero, the cap is 200.
Some sample scenarios: A 22-year-old on benefits w/ a felony: 100 − 60 − 25 − 40 = −25, rounded to zero. A 70-year-old veteran who worked 45 years: 100 + 25 + 25 + 15 = 165. A 45-year-old top-bracket taxpayer with two kids who passed the civics test: 185.
Notice how nobody is barred from voting. Everyone keeps a path back to full weight: pay in, stay out of trouble, learn how the government works. The system stops pretending the view of a law-abiding, taxpaying community leader should be equally weighted against a fentanyl-addled repeat felon surviving on handouts. Done right, the system incentivizes not only better govt, but better behavior.
Haters will call Weighted Suffrage “undemocratic.” Exactly. That’s the point. We already weight votes (Wyoming vs. California in the Senate, the Electoral College); we just do it by geography rather than by anything that correlates w/ good govt.
Anything you'd you add?
Dr Soupcan retweeted
Ok, fuck it, I wasn't gonna go there, but I changed my mind.
This explains a lot about what's wrong with people today. Yes, violence is a problem. We know that. There's another problem here, and it's one nobody seems particularly interested in discussing.
The kid just stood there and let someone assault him, without defending himself.
Now, I understand there are philosophical, moral, and legal considerations here. Restraint can be admirable.
Consider the incentives. The man who threw that punch knows that the consequences will be minor. Maybe an arrest.
Bail is probably in the three digits.
Maybe a fine.
Maybe a slap on the wrist.
Now, what if his intended victim had defended himself?
What if, instead of an easy target, he'd encountered someone willing and able to fight back?
He might have walked away with a bloody nose.
He might have ended up in the hospital. Suddenly, assaulting a stranger wouldn't seem quite so appealing, would it?
Now, I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'm not your priest, rabbi, reverend, pastor, or lawyer. I'm just a girl who was bullied rather severely until middle school.
One day, I'd had enough.
I picked up a piece of furniture and hit my bully with it. Hard enough to send her to the hospital. I was arrested. I spent several days in juvenile detention. The charges were eventually dropped.
You know what else happened? Nobody ever bullied me again.
Not physically.
Not verbally.
Not even the nasty little remarks behind my back.
Was what I did legally or morally justified? That's a perfectly reasonable question, and one I've had plenty of time to consider.
But here's something else worth considering: Some people interpret restraint as decency. Others interpret it as permission. Some people will continue hurting others for as long as they believe they can do so without meaningful consequences.
Violence shouldn't be our first response. It shouldn't be our preferred response. The right to defend yourself matters precisely because some people cannot be persuaded by words alone. Years ago, i'd admire that young mans' composure. Today? I'm disgusted by his cowardice.
We've taught several generations that being a good person means being a helpless victim, and allowing others to hit you without meaningful concequences.
Either society needs to catch up legally, or society needs to catch up with immediate physical repercussions.
Dr Soupcan retweeted
¡Oh, no!, es ella
descanso de redes, vuelvo y me entero que salió la demo hace unos dias, suerte la mia
#VolcalderaAshfall
Dr Soupcan retweeted
OH MY GOD, Polly is the world’s version of a “furry”
Dinos have their own groups of “furries”
AND IT’S HUMANS.
HUMAN CONS EXIST AND CANON TO THE SNOOT VERSE
Dr Soupcan retweeted
Holy shit. Forget Undertale and Deltarune, this is the type of game I want Vinny to play and react to the insane dialogue
Dr Soupcan retweeted
The lowest quality of human beingd are the ones who shit themselves over edgy stuff, you say free Palestine yet they voted in Hamas to run their government, they struck and continue to strike Israel
Im no fan of Israel but they literally were given the green light because of a terrorist regime running their government
I don't give a fuck about this stolen land argument, you lose wars you lose land, sorry that's life, I'm tired of people virtual signalling about a fucking BLOCK game of all things because you guys are too much of a pussy to have any real.views on the matter
unavailable
