The printing press (circa. 18th century), how Christians overcame censorship.
The free-speech elements of the right have just faced deplatforming due to Amazon’s decision to boot Parler from its servers, resulting in the temporary unavailability of the closest thing Twitter has ever had to a competitor.
Because of the establishment position of the left in big tech, they have a certain capacity for silencing the opposition through deplatforming, a capacity that they have abused for years. However, establishment is not the same thing as proficiency, and by repeatedly deplatforming their opposition, they have incentivized their opposition to learn to overcome the barriers that have been presented to them.
The irony is that while the left fancies itself as gurus of tech, most of them don’t know much about tech outside of end-user experience, and they tend to become conditioned to ease. Meanwhile, the right becomes nimble, being forced to do so by necessity.
For a person to say that they are excellent with tech just because they use devices is as naïve as saying that they understand cars because they drive them, or that they are excellent artists because they’ve used an expensive set of paints.
When a person is censored, they don’t give up on their ideology. Rather, they adapt, finding different channels through which they can connect, and they continue to speak to an audience willing to listen.
Christianity didn’t vanish because it was censored by the Roman Catholic system, it was driven underground. In time, Christians came to operate printing presses, by which point, they became unstoppable. Christians could print the Gospels faster than the Catholics could confiscate them, and as a result, people came to see that there was something wrong with the Catholic ideology, as it was plainly out of alignment with the clear words of the scriptures, which became available for all the world to read.
It’s interesting to see those who have long fancied themselves as “liberals” celebrating as their intellectual superiors are silencing the opposition through censorship, making it clear that they are not the free-speech advocates they may have claimed to be. However, history echoes their failures, making evident what comes next.
“You’re not the first person to try to rule the universe with a sword of injustice. They all failed. And so will you.”
If you’re like me, daydreaming can take you to places with ninja ladies, Nintendo, and nachos aplenty. This is because the typical man knows what rocks.
What would a militant feminist daydream about? There’s a reason that no one asks them, and that’s because they aggressively beat us over the head with it, regardless of whether anyone cares to know about it.
They don’t have artistic merit among them, but the U.N. scraped up the best they could come up with to show us the feminist utopia. You pretty much already saw it above, but here it is again, submitted for your amused disbelief:
Even ancient Greece in all its philosophical vanity and unconstitutional democracy couldn’t produce something this insane.
This locale, called Equiterra, threatens to unseat CWCville as Empress Regnant of deluded paracosms. It’s intended to showcase what an ideal society would look like in the eyes of an intersectional feminist.
It’s a huge, voluminous mountain of horse puckey, to the point that the prospect of making fun of it can take even a seasoned satirist aback. Honestly, I don’t even know where to begin. So I’ll pick an arbitrary point and then proceed on whim. Equiterra doesn’t proceed with sensible rules, so I’m under less pressure to do the same.
One thing I notice about Equiterra is the educational presence. This seems positive, until you realize that most degrees are consumer products, and most of them are absolutely useless. Most college towns fuel their economies with the debt of students that move into town, so Equiterra isn’t likely independent, especially considering Equiterra’s relative lack of production. Even if the education were “free”, who would be taxed to make this education possible?
Also, I’m noticing an emphasis on STEM. If women want STEM degrees so bad, they should just go for it. I’m not kidding. The college I went to was so serious about getting women into STEM that they even offered them private dorm rooms, something that men weren’t guaranteed. Even the fringe benefit of being surrounded by all the men they could dream of doesn’t seem to persuade them into STEM.
I noticed a wedding ad, a daycare, and reproductive services. Because Equiterra has no apparent source of food, how are its residents procreating?
There’s a “Violence-Free Alley”, as though violence weren’t already illegal everywhere. …grumble…
I noticed Hindus and Muslims co-existing peacefully near the Inclusion Square, which brings to mind just how well these groups get along in places like India. I did take notice of the lone Jew planting a tree, showing that at least one Jew survived the attempt to bring Utopia about, this time around.
But notice any signs of Christianity? Me neither. That’s kinda unrealistic, considering that it’s the most popular religion on earth. I suppose all the talk about sin, reconciliation, Natural Law, and superordinate principle made the untalented artist uncomfortable. Kinda like Hitler.
There’s a centre for recycling toxic masculinity, somehow. It’s pretty far from the only element that suggests that men are the only ones that need behavioral modification. While men have a view of women as idyllic, the fact is, women amongst themselves can be highly toxic, and sometimes even vicious. Don’t question how I know.
Also, we can do away with the notion that men are the only sources of sexual aggression, because women are certainly capable of the same. Though I suppose that not all men have made the same observation.
Equiterra has a government building, and to no one’s surprise, it’s filled with people sitting around, accomplishing not-a-damn-thing. When you’ve already screwed over all the freedoms that people already had, what would they have left to do?
Quick, how many vehicles did you notice in all of Equiterra? The recycling truck? And that’s it? Exactly. The already-dark environmentalist dystopia gets even darker with the implication that there’s no easy way out.
Not pictured is the wall citizens are climbing to escape, because people prefer a world where they can eat steak and have sex.
As ridiculous as Equiterra is, I almost want to see someone attempt it, preferably avoiding the bloodshed and genocide that precedes most failing utopias. If the U.N. thinks a town like this is such a great idea, let’s see them fund it. It’s hard to imagine they would, as the financiers of such a project would likely anticipate the return on their investment in a completely non-productive society. There’d also be an awkward moment in which they’d have to explain why they are turning down the pitch, in such a way that doesn’t explicitly confess that their professed political ideology is woefully insufficient for building a successful organized society.
“So, you want a few schools, a laboratory, your own government, oodles of reproductive services, a male toxicity treatment plant, and let’s not forget a fashion boutique. I’m double-checking; are you sure you’re not interested in any agriculture? Okay then, how many unicorns can we put you down for?”
The investment banker we all envy.
Maybe if it has a feminist tinge, socialism will finally be accepted as the real thing when it’s attempted, and we can finally apply the book-end to one of history’s most miserably stupid ideas.
A couple years ago, I took interest in DuckDuckGo while looking for alternatives to Google’s products and services. DuckDuckGo’s appeal was that it was a search engine that protects the privacy of its users, and that search results from DuckDuckGo faced relatively little censorship.
That last point is particularly important when looking for news outlets, as mainstream search engines usually prop up corporate information media with a clear left-wing bias. When a search engine is being trusted to provide information sources, and the corporate entity providing the search engine has a left-wing bias, there’s a clear conflict of interest, and they cannot be trusted to provide honest, unfiltered results.
While privacy is important, what’s especially important to me is that search results, particularly news results, remain unfiltered by the political biases of those presenting the information. In recent times, it has been especially challenging to find search engines that aren’t only pro-privacy, but also free speech.
It’s because of this that it’s disturbing that DuckDuckGo has been making donations to far-left groups, as was pointed out in the following video:
If you’re trusting a search engine such as DuckDuckGo to keep you informed as to what’s really happening in the world, it should be relevant to you that the same search engine may be making substantial donations to groups focused on ensuring that news outlets are presenting exclusively left-wing perspectives.
If you’re interested in something more tangible, I’ve conducted a simple, trivial experiment to see what sources pop up when running the search term, news, then opening the “News” tab. I performed this experiment using the DuckDuckGo search engine, and the following list is of the first ten sources:
CNN
ABC
TechCrunch
Business Insider
Forbes
Washington Post
Business Insider
Reuters
YAHOO
ABC
All of which are corporate sources, typically propped up by big tech, and whose appeal is to your parents and grandparents, who remember with rose-colored glasses the days of old when corporate media had uncontested control of information.
Next, I did the same with Yippy, a search engine that provides relevant results by grouping results into clusters. Here are the first ten news sources:
InfoWars
OANN
NY Post
Breitbart
Washington Examiner
Fox News
Media ITE
Townhall
InfoWars
OANN
InfoWars is pretty far from my first source of news. But putting that aside, I notice that this is an eclectic mix from a broad spectrum of political positions. Better still, these are mostly new media outlets, more relevant in today’s more connected world.
Out of curiousity, I decided to do the same with Google.
The Guardian
CNN
NPR
BBC News
Business Insider
NBC News
Seattle Times
BBC News
CNN
The Guardian
More of the three-letter networks, all presenting the exact same product with the exact same bias.
The internet, as it was in the 2000s, was a huge, free-and-open marketplace of ideas, permeated by diversity of thought. Today, if the internet were to be presented by to you by DuckDuckGo and Google, you’d be hearing the same idea over and over again, continually delivered by the same professional liars.
Because big tech has long-since been subverted by the far left in a manner reminiscent of Hydra’s infiltration of S.H.I.E.L.D., it’s easy to be black-pilled into thinking that any attempt to make a free speech platform would be self-defeating, considering an inevitable subversion funded from the enormous wealth of the hot-tub elites of big tech. As they are today, the free speech advocates of the intellectual dark web don’t have the kind of sophistication as those looking for any excuse to silence them.
Rather than lose hope, what we should take from developments like this is that, as the free-speech advocates and diverse thinkers of the digital age, we have to be willing to change things up when one platform loses its viability.
Similarly, if a church-goer discovers that his church has doctrines that are in direct contradiction of the Scriptures, would he continually attend, knowing full-well that the sermons are lying to him? Would he continue to tithe, knowing that he was funding deceit?
As a preventative measure, free-speech platforms should make a policy of gatekeeping when it comes to positions of influence in the company, to ensure that those who can influence the direction of the company has the company’s philosophy in mind. After all, if a company’s philosophy is lost, that company loses its reason to exist, and becomes yet another corporate husk that justifies its existence solely through profits, competing with dozens of other media companies offering the exact same product in the short time they have left.
The site claims the information it provides is of “Americans who Give Money to Support a Racist.” Donald Trump has condemned racism, though the left likes to pretend that he didn’t.
The site’s information was made available due to the fact that those who make campaign contributions must share their full name and address. But there’s a further twist to a site that’s already substantially twisted: it abuses MapQuest by providing directions to their homes.
To the surprise of absolutely no one in the entire universe, the site’s registering company is based in California, which has a substantially different culture as compared to the rest of the civilized world.
It’s pretty obvious that the purpose of the site is intimidation. It’s existence is to make the point that if you donate to Trump, some violent out-of-control freaks are going to come for you.
As one could imagine, there’s so much potential for this to backfire. For one thing, Trump supporters and conservatives in general actually work for a living, and as a consequence, can get to be physically fit without even going to the gym. They might have dogs, too. Not those wimpy little comfort animals that weirdos take with them to grocery stores in their purses, I mean real dogs.
Then there’s the fact that they’re likely to have guns. Let that sink in, and you’ll realize that your usual Antifa pansy that’s about as lanky as those pictured above would do well not to antagonize their political opponents, as the resulting one-sided stomp-fest would be quite predictable.
Not that that’s any skin off the website maintainer(s) face, since its whole point is to make other people fight their battles for them.
The existence of the site provides an illustration of the worldview of the extreme left; they are polarized to the point that they actually believe that their political opponents are the worst people, and that anything they can do against them would be justified. They actually believe that attacking ordinary people is doing service to mankind because they convinced themselves that they’re targeting the worst of humanity.
While you’re asleep at night, or while you’re at work, or while you’re feeding your family, some creep in another state is conspiring against someone just like you, all the while performing psychological gymnastics to convince themselves that they are taking on Nazis and white supremacists.
But in their unhinged minds, they fail to comprehend that America would be measurably more peaceful if their own kind populated the prison system, where they belong.
The left’s finest weapon against the forces of fascism would be introspection, if they were to develop it.
Sometimes, it happens that a person says the wrong thing, but we all know what they meant. However, Joe Biden had just made (yet another) gaffe that has some people suspicious that it’s less of a mistake and more of a Freudian slip.
Here’s what the Presidential nominee had to say:
“We’re in a situation where we have put together – and you guys did it for our admi … the president, Obama’s administration before this – we have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics,”
Interpreters the world over immediately got to work to figure out just what it was he said. However, one flub in particular stands out:
“we have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics,”
It’s possible Biden meant to say something other than fraud, but Joe himself might be the only one who knows for sure, but even then, I have doubts. But because it’s difficult to place what he meant, it might actually be a case of accidentally saying the quiet part out loud.
It’s also possible that someone hacked the world’s most influential teleprompter. Our own guys really need to step it up, because it’s looking like the Russians are the only ones that are any good at hacking stuff.
(By the way, that was a joke, not a challenge. I know that American intelligence agencies excel at spying on Americans.)
What makes Biden different from your usual politician is the sheer number of gaffes that come right from him, such as this gem from just last night, when he forgot who he was running against:
‘Four more years of George, er, George, er, he – we’re going to find ourselves in a position where, if Trump gets elected, we’re going to be in a different world,’
His wife, who was present, appeared to silently correct him, but it’s amusing that he said the same name again as he attempted to correct himself.
FYI: George W. Bush hasn’t run for office since 2004.
What I find amusing is his sentiment that ‘if Trump gets elected, we’re going to be in a different world’. Nice try, Biden. But Trump was already elected. He’s up for re-election; he’s the incumbent.
This article is a criticism of a recent GQ article, titled, The Mystery of the Immaculate Concussion. Before getting into it, there’s a concept that I wish to bring to your attention which you may already be aware of: gaslighting.
Gaslighting is the act of causing a person to doubt their own perceptions, usually in an effort to make them easier to manipulate. In extreme cases, a victim of gaslighting may become convinced that they have a mental illness.
Another thing to know about is targeted individuals (TIs, for short). TIs are a community of people who believe themselves to be the victims of sophisticated gang-stalking. Some of them even claim to be the victims of unethical experiments or attacks with acoustic or electromagnetic technologies. Many of them have claimed that these attacks are the cause of headaches or various other maladies.
It’s a tad indulgent, but there is another thing to bring to mind, and that is Hitchen’s Razor. It goes something like this: “What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
The story featured a man who went to Russia to spy on Russia and experienced his first major migraine there. Either that, or he had one vodka too many. I know that sounds like a joke, but what he described was similar to what I’ve experienced from two daiquiris and a shot of strong rum right before bed.
Like a Hillary campaign staffer, he blamed the Russians.
But hey, why would a major publication like GQ have gotten the memo?
Of course, there are more major problems, including their repeated insinuations that Trump is cozy with Russia. What the author doesn’t seem to realize is the conflict of interest this creates: If the Russians were cozy with the President of the United States, it would be absolutely counterproductive to squander that goodwill by attacking Americans visiting their homeland, especially if they are government officials. To attack another country’s citizens is an act of war.
Because it’s conspiracy theorists we’re talking about, they probably already thought of some way to iron this out. And it’s probably quite complicated.
The article’s TI wasn’t without a plan to determine that the Russians were behind the attack: snubbing them on their holiday card tradition. He understood that exchanging Christmas cards was one of the ways Russian bureaucrats express respect, so he decided to withhold cards one year, and watch how they reacted.
And whaddaya know? When you disrespect someone, they get upset. What did this prove? That the TI would make a terrible diplomat, it seems.
You might be wondering whether I believe that there does exist the technology to attack someone with EM waves. And I believe it. One doesn’t have to look into anything classified to know it, since it’s been publicly known for a long time that something similar has been used to generate a sensation of heat as a deterrent, as the article points out.
However, in the article, the author jumps to conclusions, implying connections based on incomplete information. That is conspiracy theorism per se, and any smug sense of superiority over others who practice it on the part of the author is forfeit.
The reason I suspect gaslighting in GQs article is because there is a twisted message that it alludes to: that if you’ve been experiencing strong headaches, Russia may be to blame, and Trump doesn’t care. This makes the article out to be an attempt to prey upon vulnerable adults, weaponizing the TI community and others with paranoid delusions in an effort to swing an election.
If the apparent effort were not deliberate, and the article’s author was sincere, it offers yet another window into the thinking of a kind of person the left and the Dark State attracts: the conspiracy theorists that don’t like to be called conspiracy theorists, while accusing others of the same. Yet, their paranoid delusions are evident: they see racists as around every corner, and secret sexists all around them. Plots congeal in the shadows, and the Russians made them misplace their slippers. Trump! Russia! Possible collusion!
Obviously, the author isn’t stupid, as Julia Ioffe was able to construct a narrative in a lengthy article that’s an interesting read. However, the article was obviously authored in such a way as to try to get the reader to assume connections based on limited or missing evidence.
There’s no shame in engaging in conspiracy theories if you’re honest enough to admit that that’s what you’re doing.
“All things being equal, the correct hypothesis tends to be the one that makes the fewest assumptions.”
As the novel coronavirus (SARS CoV-2) spread early in 2020, the prevailing wisdom was “14 days to slow the spread”. We’re now over 200 days into the lockdowns, and there’s no signs that (mostly-left) leaders have any plans for life to return to normal, in spite of the extremely-low fatality rate of a virus that turned out to be mostly harmless.
“We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” said WHO envoy Dr. David Nabarro. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”
“We really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method,” said Nabarro. “Look what’s happening to poverty levels – it seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition because children are not getting meals at school… This is a terrible ghastly global catastrophe, actually.” (emphasis mine)
Those advocating the lockdowns are obviously not considering the doubling poverty rates or the child starvation that their irresponsible policies are causing. But considering that they have no idea how to run a society, how can you blame them for making such a mistake?
Jane Orient M.D. is one of over 200,000 people, as well as doctors, scientists, and professors, who have signed the Great Barrington Declaration, which has decried the damage done by the coronavirus shutdowns. She is among the many who has pointed to the successes of Sweden in battling the coronavirus, where coronavirus restrictions were minimal, and yet the country has had lower-than-expected coronavirus rates.
Recently, posting anything to social media challenging the WHO’s advice in regards to the coronavirus has been considered grounds on those outlets for censoring the same content, or perhaps even banning the poster. Now that the WHO is adopting a stance that challenges the thinking of these predominantly-left social media outlets, how these outlets respond to this new information remains to be seen.
As I’ve pointed out before, the economy isn’t just some abstract concept that only stockholders and smart people talk about, it’s something that matters to anyone who cares whether a box of pasta costs $1 or $5. Even if you’re one of those morons who believe that wealth should be redistributed while only a few people should actually work, it should make sense to you that a society doesn’t have a reason to eat unless they actually produce something. For something to be produced, businesses have to be allowed to actually conduct business.
If you do not understand this, you are in no position to tell society how to operate.
Yelp, a popular online review site with one of the most popular cellular apps, says it will begin flagging businesses that are accused of racist conduct. The flag would be against establishments that have made the news for racism, but would be removed after 90 days, assuming that the matter involving racism has been resolved.
I’ve used Yelp before. It’s a user-driven review site that can help people decide which restaurants and other businesses to visit, and which ones to avoid. I admit that I’ve made the choice to choose a different establishment because I’ve read one-too-many negative reviews. I’ve even written some reviews, even if just to point out that a fast-food joint is, in fact, a typical fast-food joint (filthy parking lots, an unpleasant connotation of class-warfare from rude employees that could’ve applied for a different job, etc.).
Now, if an establishment makes the news for being racist, that establishment can be flagged on Yelp as racist.
Yelp’s decision to classify these restaurants in this manner on their own is likely to fend off the possibility of review-bombing, which has long been a problem on Yelp. You might have already known that anyone can write up a Yelp review, and in those reviews, people might not necessarily tell the truth. In fact, Yelp themselves has previously shown evidence of review fraud from businesses that have payed people for reviews on Yelp.
In a similar manner to how a group of people can review bomb, a group of people can also agree to make an accusation of racism to the point of the accusation getting media attention. This effectively weaponizes Yelp as yet another tool to tear someone down with the mere power of false accusation.
But it gets even worse in the context of post-truth regressive leftism. It usually goes that if just one person is making an accusation, it can usually be dismissed as a pie-in-the-sky grumbling of a malcontent. But if multiple people are making the same accusation, then it seems as though something must really be up. If a bunch of people can come to a consensus that someone should be a target, and agree upon a story to bring them down, that can be difficult for people to argue against, especially in a culture of people who presume guilt against people arrested for and charged with crimes.
I think this can be called the Jezebel effect.
If you’re wondering who Jezebel is, she’s someone we can read about in the Bible. She was married to a king who wanted a plot of land, but the owner wouldn’t sell it to him. So Jezebel invented a crime against him, and got a couple people to act as false witnesses. The land owner was then slain, and the king got the plot of land, but immediately afterwards got a stern talking-to from Elijah.
If you’re wondering what eventually became of Jezebel, she was defenestrated then eaten by dogs. Not a pleasant way to go.
Let’s be honest here; true racism in America is rare. You’d have to comb the land to find someone who is sincerely racist (as opposed to being falsely-accused). Ironically, the most racist language that’s propagated today comes from the groups traditionally thought of as being victims of racism. Come on, guys. You have to be the change you want to see.
While true racism is bad (as rare as it may be), the witch-hunt for racism has morphed into a mind-destroying toxicity of the worst kind, and is used as a false pretext for going after people merely for being on the other side. To that end, it’s a problem that persists for it’s own self-perpetuation. The weaponization of false accusation is too powerful a weapon for the mobs to want to give up.
It’s obvious to any sensible person why it’s wrong to hate someone for an immutable characteristic. But it should also be obvious why it’s wrong to target someone with a false accusation because you disagree with them, or suspect they aren’t doing enough to champion your own pet cause.
It’s too bad that there are as many people out there as there are who aren’t as strongly concerned with the truth of a matter as they are with its potential to further their own ideology. But as I’ve said before, if it’s necessary to lie to get people to accept what you’re trying to sell them, perhaps you shouldn’t believe it, either.
EDIT: A previous version of this article was written with the assumption that the designation as racist would be made by individual users. It does help to be careful with your news sources, as some of them can present a matter in a way more consistent with the bias of the news organization presenting it. Not that that’s a new problem.
The Vice Presidential debate was last night, and apparently, people actually watched it. That in itself surprised me, because the VP debate was like the diet cola of the campaign debates; in that people largely kid themselves about how much they matter.
Because the political climate today is bloated with people that don’t listen to what the other side has to say (largely enabled by social media algorithms serving content relative to a user’s political interests), there’s no surprise that either side would claim victory while shutting their ears to any point the other side actually made.
Because no one was actually paying attention, when a fly landed on Vice President Pence, that’s what got everyone talking. The next day, when people talked about the debate, it was mainly about the fly, which is to be expected when the debate is watched by a relatively disinterested audience that gave the debate a shot because they already streamed the Marvel movies and binge-watched every episode of The Mandalorian.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Between the two, the fly made the safer choice. I can imagine the fly bursting into flames if it were to land on Kamala Harris.
She’s the person who held people in prison for extended sentences for minor crimes so she could use them for cheap labor, paying them $1/hour to fight California wildfires. She started a fund to bail out rioters, even as rioters that had their charges dismissed by West-coast judges simply returned to riots. She filed criminal charges against the parents of truants, then laughed as she recalled their distress. She obstructed a DNA test that could have exonerated a man on death row, and when he was tested, he was cleared. Then, she blamed workers at her office for the obstruction, rather than take accountability for her own actions.
Reading her accomplishments, Kamala Harris sounds like the Chuck Norris of evil.
But as for the fly, if you guys like the thing so much, vote for it as a write-in. At this point, it wouldn’t surprise me if the thing actually won.
Talks have reached an impasse on the stimulus package that was designed to provide relief in light of the coronavirus shutdowns, and if legacy media is to be trusted, millions of Americans are upset because they aren’t getting a few hundred extra dollars in their bank accounts.
Let’s do something educational today. The following is a mathematical sign:
This symbol means less-than. It is used instead of an equals sign in mathematical expressions where the left side of the expression is of lesser value than the right. When the opposite is true, and the right side of the equation is of lesser value, the symbol is flipped horizontally and is galled a greater-than symbol.
This symbol is called much less-than. The theory behind it is the same as the less-than symbol, but with a bit of a subjective element; it can be used when the difference in quantity is vast, to the point that it’s obvious that the two sides of the expression are nowhere close to equal.
Knowing that, let’s make a comparison. The next coronavirus relief package being considered would deposit $1200 into the bank accounts of Americans. If you, like myself, are accustomed to living marginally, you’re imagining all the macaroni and cheese you can buy with all that money.
You might even splurge on the Kraft logo, the bling of boxed pasta and yellow powder.
Otherwise, that 72 inch TV that you’ve been eyeing has come into your crosshairs.
It would seems like $1200 is a lot of money, but there’s a reason I brought the less-than sign into this; we’re going to make a comparison. The poverty level for the 48 contiguous states in the United States is $12,760 (source). Living on that kind of money is not easy, but it’s certainly a lot more reasonable than attempting to live off of the stimulus checks alone. In this case, the less-than symbol is merited, because it’s obvious that the former quantity is lesser than the latter.
Let’s do another comparison. Let’s compare the $1200 number to what a person would make in a year employed at minimum wage, full-time. It varies state-to-state, but assuming the Pennsylvania minimum wage of $7.25 / hour, that comes to about $15,080 dollars per year. Another less-than case where the stimulus package is only of marginal realistic help.
Next, let’s compare the $1200 number to the median household income in the United States for the year 2019. That would be $68,703 (source). In this case, the much less-than sign is merited.
And for anyone curious, the average yearly income for an Electronic Technician is much less than that median household income. Are STEM majors FTW, after all?
It should be obvious at this point that the correct way to deal with the economic damage caused by the coronavirus shutdowns would be to allow businesses to conduct business, so that the people they employ can be compensated for their contributions. Compared to the yearly income of nearly all people gainfully employed in the United States, the coronavirus relief packages are a mere drop in the bucket.
One of the reasons why I tend not to vote Democrat is because I have an understanding of what the economy is, and know how to do simple math, including the direct comparison of quantities. It’s obvious that the left is attempting to court the short-sighted who overestimate their own abilities.
As vexing as it may be, it’s an approach that works, because there are enough dimwits out there to make a difference.
Magnetricity 