Because adding more staffing is really hard and will take a very long time even if we started today.

We still should be working for that ideally today, but in terms of immediate actions taking away/delaying healthcare is something that can be done today

That’s a debate since authoritarianism to libertarianism is a spectrum so there is no official “normal” and its generally used qualitatively on individual polices

Regulated and censoring speech - auth Absolute freedom of speech - lib Limiting speech to prohibit only speech that can cause harm to others - somewhere in the middle

Requiring the state to dispense all drugs - auth No drug regulations, no dea, no fda- lib Some drug regulations including requiring “generally recognized as safe and effective”- somewhere in the middle

No country is full auth or full lib

I literally never did and I am done reading your page long responses that involve you not reading anything I wrote, making up an argument and then responding to that I have had more productive conversations with a homeless man on the bus

Dude are you a bot? For the 500th time I NEVER SAID YOU HAVE LESS FREEDOM IN A SOCIALIST SOCIETY

That is a straw man you have made up and keep arguing against

You are the one making it binary when it isn’t and when I say it isn’t you bring it back to being binary. You can have libertarian beliefs without wanting a complete dissolution of the government the same way you can have authoritarian beliefs while still wanting people to have individual freedoms. So yes you can have libertarian capitalism which is simply a less regulated form vs authoritarian capitalism. We can see this in the UK vs EU where the UK is requiring people to submit official IDs to see porn (auth) vs the EU passing data privacy laws (lib)

You are inventing all these other arguments that I am not making. I have never said socialist countries have less freedoms and don’t even remotely believe that so if you are not making a strawman then try rereading what I am saying because you are arguing against an argument I am not making which is the literal definition of a strawman

That’s called being authoritarian, there is nothing wrong with that and as long as the state is using that power fairly that can create a great society but you must realize that on a 1-10 scale of government authority with a 1 being full on anarchy and 10 being the state has full control to make all decisions that you are closer to a 10 then a 1

As soon as you give the state power to go after people with different beliefs (even if those beliefs are deplorable) you are being authoritarian

They believe in an authoritarian government systems. Where the state has extra power that they can use to enforce their goals. That is in contrast to anarcho communists where the state is dissolved.

Logically most leftists fall somewhere in the middle as not wanting full on authoritarian government but also not wanting a complete lack of government

In theory if the state has the best interests of the people, then by giving the state extra power all you are doing is reducing bureaucracy and increasing efficiency. That however also makes it easier for the state to abuse that power so I am not saying one is better or worse than the other

This is an intentional strawman right? Like there is no way you are truly misunderstanding this much?

Auth governement dictates what individual citizens can/ can not do

Lib government limits what power the government has over individual citizens

You can’t say we are actually lib because we only are targeting the “bad people”

Show your conviction and don’t dance around your point if you want a government that has more power over its citizens that’s fine, that’s your belief and you are fully entitled to it but if you can’t acknowledge your own beliefs that’s its own problem

You quite easily can, the contradictions that happen are due to humans having complex views and not everything being black and white.

Liberalism isn’t the moderate option on the political compass but is just one of the axis that has an extreme…

It’s a spectrum and a person who supports the government having more control of their citizens is considering authoritarian. A person who wants to limit government control over their citizens is more libertarian.

It’s a very valid belief that someone might want leftist policies with limited government control over individual citizens so calling them all tankies is inaccurate and confusing

On the political compass there are 4 directions. Left, right, libertarian, authoritarian.

A tankie is auth left a fascist is auth right

Saying everyone on the left is a tankie ignores the lib left it’s the same as saying that everyone on the right is a fascist which is also not accurate

Not all leftists are tankies the same way not all right wingers are fascists. A tankie is an authoritarian leftist

You will play along by still completely missing the point…

This is like me saying imagine you are getting peanut butter at the store and your response is I don’t like peanut butter…

The human brain is incredibly complex. You should have the capacity to shut those eyes of yours real tight, turn your brain onto overdrive mode, and imagine a scenario where someone shows you a video and you have a desire to know if that video is real, if you can’t that’s fine but i am not going to waste my time I think most people get that skill during adolescence if you follow Piaget stages of cognitive development

Individually doctored pictures with a doctored voice that is very convincing that can be strung together with such skill that it can beat even an amateur forensic analysis was essentially unheard of in the 2000s now a days you can submit an audio file and some pictures into a computer and get a result in minutes with no skill whatsoever

Okay so change the scenario you are given a video that shows your SO cheating on you. Your SO denies it happens, can you trust video evidence?

You are a member of a jury in a court of law and you are shown a video of the defendant killing another person the defendant claims it’s AI, can you trust video evidence?

You are watching the news and they play a clip of a politician saying some bad things, can you trust the video evidence?

You see a video of police beating a protestor, the police officer claims it was AI and the witnesses are antifa plants, CAN YOU TRUST VIDEO EVIDENCE?

Literally it’s the same thing over and over again but for over 100 years we could trust video evidence with a decent amount of certainty and now in the course of less than 5 years the ability to spot fake videos just became astronomically harder and the ability to make fake videos got much easier. That should be scary to you because I can guarantee you in the next 10 years at least one innocent person will be put in jail because of AI video and at least one guilty person will be kept out of jail because the prosecutor could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the video wasn’t AI

Because until a few years ago videos were almost all real or easy to tell if they were fake

Someone anonymously sends you a video of your best friend abusing a bunch of animals, don’t you want to have the skills to know if the video is real?

If your patsy is too good it becomes more suspicious. If they did frame him I am imagine they did their geo fencing and found people who were alone visiting nyc in that time frame and then left and of the people they looked at he was the easiest to frame

A 30yr old and a 35yr old are basically in the same place in life, they have both had many similar experiences, and have fully matured.

Even between 17 and 19 there are potentials for vastly different levels of maturity and different experiences like one can be in high school and the other in college or working

13 and 19 is really bad so the broad statement “it’s ok for teens to date teens” definitely needs a big asterisk. 16 and 19 is probably the biggest gap that’s not unequivocally creepy but can still be bad considering how different people develop

Obviously I can’t see the bike lanes, but some common reasons for that:

They aren’t flat

There is a pothole

There is debris

The lane isn’t wide enough and the little bit of wobbles makes it safer to hug the lane

It’s not even a bike lane just a shoulder

I see all of those on my 3 mile bike commute to work some of them multiple times

Where I used to live there was bike lanes separated from the roads which was safer for cyclists, kept cyclists off the roads, and were able to be used by pedestrians as well

If you don’t like seeing cyclists in the road then encourage your community to invest in better infrastructure including things like physical barriers separating cyclists from cars

That’s why the idaho stop is important. But if there are no lanes then that’s probably why people ride in the road… and if you do ride in the road it’s much much more dangerous to bike to the side as people will try and pass you in an unsafe way instead of respecting your bikes legal standing as a vehicle on the road