I’m inclined to agree with this. Jones doesn’t seem like someone trying to sell a bunch of crazy conspiracy theories which he doesn’t believe himself. He seems like he’s just genuinely batshit crazy.

What is that?

Fair point, albeit a different one from the one I was making.

Oh, I’m not blaming you at all, I’m just commenting on the article

Misleading title. Not incorrect, but it is based on what the source of income is, it is not about how rich you are relative to the rest of the population. The title makes it sound like if you make a certain amount of money, your tax rate is lowered. Alternatively, it sounds like the richest Dutch are evading 12% worth of taxes. But neither of these are true statements AFAIK, and either way they aren’t made in the article, so the title is misleading.

Edit: Changed “the top 1%” to “the richest Dutch”.

Tbh I feel like this is sometimes the case. Whenever I’ve looked for really cheap basic one-color t-shirts, the lowest cost ones usually have a brand logo on them.

The past tense of yeet is yöted

Maybe a word which likens it to how water flows in a river? How about rivering?

I agree with that, it’s important to consider what’s being advertised and in what way.

“Here, eat a caterpillar, you’ll feel better.”

I considered it before I switched from 7 to 10, but since 10 still makes it possible to create an offline account and disable most of the spyware and other bloat, I opted to stay with Windows for another generation of OS. 11 is different though, it’s several steps too far into proprietary hell.

I’ve been dipping my toes into it over the years, I’m just not ready to make it my daily driver quite yet

The second Win 10 stops receiving security updates, it’s Linux for me.

Lamest take

I’ve seen their ads in Sweden before IIRC. They don’t seem to be very common though. Why don’t you like that they’re advertising?

Since when is Joe Rogan bad enough to warrant getting shot in the first place? I feel like the guy has said some bad (and far more dumb) things but it’s not like he poses any kind of danger to anyone does he? I know this is besides the point, but murder is far from proportional to anything (that I am aware of) that Joe has been known to do. With that said I don’t really know much about what he’s been up to for the past 5 years or so.

So even if Biden is a bad candidate we should pretend like he’s not because the alternative is worse? Trump is absolutely much worse, but that doesn’t make Biden good. Why do we have to sell him as an above average candidate when he’s not? Honestly I don’t really see your point here. Claiming that Biden is bad doesn’t make Trump any better. I’d also like to clarify that I never said that anyone should not vote for Biden. And I definitely don’t endorse voting for Trump as an alternative.

Above average Democrat? Please, the guy has dementia. And no, I’m not a right winger, and I obviously think Trump is a worse option. But Biden isn’t above average anything at this point. He’s barely awake.

Them redefining anarchism is precisely the point I was making. It’s not impossible for there to exist different definitions of the same term; you don’t have to agree with them to acknowledge their existence. And from that point of view it’s not necessarily a self-contradictory philosophy, it’s basically just fantasy capitalism. As I understand it, they are basically defining anarchism as opposition specifically to the state (as defined by its monopoly on violence). Rights to “life, liberty and property” are to be upheld by “decentralized” (and I use that term extremely loosely here) private enforcement agencies. Imo this is both unrealistic and undesirable, but it isn’t inconsistent on a philosophical level, which tends to be the level most an ancaps argue from, since their ideology is incredibly impractical and idealistic.

On a more meta level I agree that it’s just an alternative “cooler” version of libertarian capitalism for the edgier crowd, but that’s not the point I was trying to make.

Idk, I feel like a lot of these political terms have multiple definitions depending on time and context. The word “liberal”, for example, has very different meaning depending on which political group you ask, not to mention its evolution over the course of history, and its meaning in different countries and political systems. There are many valid and important criticisms of anarcho-capitalism, but purposefully misunderstanding what people mean by the word isn’t a very strong one imo.