~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
sopun
[–]ZealousMathematician149 points150 points151 points 8 years ago (89 children) | Copy Link
...that’s the thing. Among the poor are those who can gain skills or want skills, those that have skills but are mired in debt. I don’t mind starting funding programs for them.
But the people with little or no skills, maybe debt, and want to have a middle class or more lifestyle just because they exist are perched on society.
[–][deleted] 75 points76 points77 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
That's racist, you white male cis cum! #metoo
[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Why the fuck did you assume zher/their/they/them/zhis/his/her/its gender?
[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
OMG DID YOU JUST ASSUME HIS GENDER!?!?!?!?!?!?!
YOU HAVE COMMITTED A GRIEVOUS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION! I'M CALLING THE UN!
[–]febreezing_hobos0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
...And the UN un-Nazied the world.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The UN couldn't un-nazi a wet paper bag thankfully.
[–]fmanly61 points62 points63 points 8 years ago (80 children) | Copy Link
Honestly, I have no issue with people freeloading because a rather significant part of society simply can't do anything else. I'm all for having universal basic income, provided that all recipients are first sterilized and required to have a license to have kids. I'd even make the sterilization free of charge.
A lot of intelligence/aptitude/health/etc is genetic, so as long as over the long term we're avoiding having these people reproduce we'll actually trend away from idiocracy.
[–]orphancrippla47 points48 points49 points 8 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link
That may be an unpopular opinion here, but I agree. Just stopping them from popping out baby after baby that the state would have to support anyways makes that worth it. Make the stupidity, addiction, and inability to accomplish anything die out.
[–]ApoAlaia20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago* (25 children) | Copy Link
It is an unpopular opinion because the foundation is morally debatable.
We know from observation alone that offspring of parents that make poor life choices or are conditioned to failure by societal/environmental factors can be perfectly functional members of society; some of them go on to become overachievers.
However in order to unburden the active population we would be denying them the chance to even exist.
It is means to deal with the potential burden without having to deal with the prickly underlying issues that no one in recorded history has managed to successfully tackle (except perhaps in an oblique way Genghis Khan, but his methods would I think prove rather unpopular in our age) but it does come with a rather difficult moral conundrum.
[–]Mister_Mask25 points26 points27 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
You need a licence to drive, you need a licence to get married, you even get vetted when you want to adopt a dog, and in the UK you need a licence to watch television...and yet, any dumb fuck can just open their legs, go "Whoops! Well gawrsh darn it, looks like I gone done got me preggers." and bam, they're now qualified to be a parent apparently.
I see nothing wrong with a parenting licence to go along with all the others. You want a kid, then you take an exam and you prove you know how to look after it. If you fail, you have to retrain and try again. You have a child illegally, then it gets taken in by the system and you get slapped with a big enough fine that will make sure you won't be making that mistake again.
[–]ApoAlaia3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
It was the 'sterilisation' part the one that posed the biggest quandary.
We know that giving the government unusual powers is a slippery slope. There are a handful of countries that have had... severe issues with this in the 20th century, not just the obvious one.
Regarding the 'license to reproduce' there is something similar: adoption; it is often a grueling experience that prospective parents undergo vs 'natural' reproduction. Unsure about what the consequences would be at this point but another thing that history teaches us is that what at first glance look like simple and efficient solutions to complex and multi-layered problems are usually neither one nor the other.
You use the example of the driving license; think on the size and scope of the apparatus set to regulate and enforce such a thing. Now think on what would be required to do the same thing but with human reproduction. Finally consider the abuses that the enforcement of the highway code leads to and transpose them to a government bureaucracy that has been given direct control of its citizens' fertility. You don't need to look far to get some historical examples, look at the recent history of countries that had government enforced birth control policies in the 20th century.
It is becoming apparent that we need new 'things'; new forms of government, law writing and enforcement because the current millennia old framework is fraying at the seams but this is not new, it has been tried before with varying degrees of failure.
[–]fmanly2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Without sterilization (or something equivalent like implanted birth control) you can't really prevent stupid people from getting pregnant.
Sure, you can fine them or whatever. But, stupid people do illegal stuff all the time without thought to the consequences. Even with government aid the costs and inconvenience of raising a kid are going to dwarf anything the government could impose as a punishment.
If you want to avoid people on public assistance popping out a bunch of kids, you have to sterilize them.
Besides, in my proposal it isn't mandatory. It would only be mandatory to receive basic income. Now, my hunch is in 20 years most people will need basic income to put food on the table, but most people who are against things like sterilization don't believe that automation will replace manual work so hopefully that isn't an issue.
The problem today is that instead of a messy bureaucracy running things we instead have turned the keys over to the least responsible members of society. Unless you populated the licensing bureau exclusively with single mothers I doubt you could get a worse result.
[–]Philletto3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Have you tried to adopt a puppy lately? Background check, personality assessemnt, references. But Baby? Nada.
[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
When I adopted a cat they made me sign a document saying that they had permission to break into my house if needed to take it back if I mistreated it. Seriously.
It would be completely unenforceable I'm sure, and I doubt that signing it would make any difference to somebody who would actually do such a thing, but it was there.
[–]Rick_OShay11 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You need a license to watch TV?!
[–]fmanly-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
In the UK you do, actually. Funds the BBC. I wouldn't group it with driving/flying/medicine/etc since its purpose isn't to enforce quality/safety.
[–]Rick_OShay10 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Hard to believe the UK was once an empire occupying 1/4 of the land on Earth.
[–]squeezeonein9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
The socialist counterpoint would be that the wealthy exist from passive income so the poor keep the whole system running as cogs in the machine even if they never better their situation, or die on their feet. I know that you're not saying the working poor should be sterilised but the fact is slavery is alive and well in the west and it is unethical to punish someone for situations outside their control.
Sometimes I think the world is like the meme of the dog on the pc who has no idea what he is doing. Like the soldier on the battlefield who is told "sweet and honourable it is to die for ones country" he goes off to war but not to his own benefit.
[+][deleted] 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
Immigrants in the US aren't really about the tax base. Businesses like them for cheap labor, and democrats like them because they assume immigrants will vote for democrats. That is why they make such a big deal out of identity politics - if you can get somebody to vote for you purely on the basis of their race/gender/etc then you don't owe them anything once you're in office and that makes it easier to collect bribes.
1 child credit makes more sense. And if the child dies you get to have another one. This way you maintain the population.
[–]ApoAlaia2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Slavery, or indented servitude in one form or another, is indeed alive and thriving today.
Going slightly off course here I find ironic that feminism, which is hell bent on the demolition of the current social framework without having the faintest clue on what to bring about next thus risking a triumphant stand on a pile of worthless rubble, doesn't realise that since the agricultural revolution women have been by far and large the yoke placed around the necks of the many for the benefit of the few.
The lack of awareness is baffling.
Either way no, I do not at any point advocate for giving the ruling parties direct control of human reproduction as an excuse for their incapacity and unwillingness to deal with the underlying issues, system enforced inequity being just one of them.
[–]MGTOW_Monger0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Heavy read
Thanks for sharing
[–]lipidsly1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
parents that make poor life choices or are conditioned to failure by societal/environmental factors can be perfectly functional members of society; some of them go on to become overachievers.
Not criminals, no.
Indeed your parents are the best indicator of where youll end up
[–]ApoAlaia1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
If it only were so simple.
Except it isn't. Where you are born can and does weigh much more heavily on who will you become than who you were born to.
[–]lipidsly2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Nope. Iq is one of the best indicators for how well youll do ina. Given situation or society
Your genetics determine that by about 80% almost 100% if nutrition is covered
[–]ApoAlaia2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
So, someone born to destitute delinquent parents (not the only kind you can find there mind you) in a fabela in Brazil vs someone born to wealthy parents (who indeed can still be criminals) in a gated community in California; both have their life paths determined for the most part by their genetic makeup?
Social and environmental circumstances have no bearing on the outcome?
[–]lipidsly2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
someone born to destitute delinquent parents (not the only kind you can find there mind you) in a fabela in Brazil vs someone born to wealthy parents (who indeed can still be criminals) in a gated community in California; both have their life paths determined for the most part by their genetic makeup?
Statistically, yes.
Very little.
This is shown by twin and adoption studies.
[–]ApoAlaia0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
So applying this logic sterilising all the delinquents among the wealthy and powerful would lead to a healthier ruling class?
Because this looks like a better and easier to implement solution that sterilising the poor and destitute.
There are far fewer of the former than there are of the latter, the financial burden can be offset by appropriating their illegally acquired wealth and perhaps the resulting healthier ruling class, unshackled from the genetic conditioning, will be less prone to the pitfalls of wielding power and more likely to tackle the issues that burden a large swathe of the human population: being weighed down by unscapable societal odds while their genetic makeup compels them to rise and shine.
EDIT: Also, have these genetic markers been identified and established that is a clear case of presence=manifestation and that they do not in turn manifest in ways that are desirable? Many genes seem to have multiple effects, some of them desirable other undesirable and what triggers them doesn't seem to be well understood.
If the answer to both question is 'yes' let's start screening from the top.
That's the thing. Modern society has an incredible amount of economic productivity. I realize most people here are very libertarian but the US government already manages to spend $12k for every man, woman, and child living here (and I think that doesn't just include citizens). That is on top of state spending.
Children born to parents who can't afford them are a huge chunk of that spending. They get direct benefits (often paid to the parents). The parents usually end up having diminished income due to juggling the kids, and get stuck in poverty. Both the parents and the kids are more likely to be criminals and so you end up with all the costs of dealing with that crime, including the costs not paid by the government to the victims of that crime. Then that kid is much more likely to do more of the same when they grow up.
And that isn't even talking about heritability of those traits/etc.
If you have the kids being born to families that can afford them and are likely to raise them well, then you start a virtuous cycle. Productivity of subsequent generations goes up, and costs go down. Over time basic income actually becomes less of an issue because nearly everybody has a family.
The costs would be highest at the start, because our society is pretty messed up. That said if automation does displace jobs and necessitate basic income it would come with a huge boost to productivity which could help pay for it.
[–]notacrookatall0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Don't worry. We call them incels around here.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Good luck nut getting crucified with that proposal. I support it but they'd all call us nazreeeeeeees
[–]eloquentnemesis2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Nah, wait twenty years and implement mandatory genetic therapy with crispr83.5 to eradicate diseases and a minimum IQ boost to productive levels.
[–]lipidsly2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Youll never get the sterilization, but theyll “negotiate” with you so they get everything else
[–]based_meme2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
There's a strong case to be made for breeding licensing, but forced sterilization infringes upon personal rights, not to mention the obvious ethical issue.
Couples who demonstrate physical, psychological, emotional, and financial health, as well as commitment to each other and potential offspring would be suitable and qualified candidates to have children.
The status quo in the world right now is that there are a lot of stupid and irresponsible people constantly breeding. Unfortunately, the sad reality is that the nature of power dynamics and role allocation means that you simply need the numbers to support societies with a breadth of all required roles.
Another way to put this is the classic, "if everybody has a PhD, who is going to clean the toilets?" The sad fact is that the world needs stupid and unqualified people, so that undesirable, yet wholeheartedly necessary, roles are filled.
The next time you identify a stupid person thank them for being themselves. They won't know or may not understand, but they'll be flattered nonetheless. (When you cannot appeal to reason that simply isn't present, you can appeal to emotion.)
And the lesson to all the geniuses out there is to keep your ego in check, be humble, and know that even you have a role to play.
[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You can't really have one without the other, unless you want to have forced abortions.
However, in my proposal nobody would be required to be sterilized. It would only be a requirement to receive basic income.
[–]based_meme0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You could impose harsh penalties on the parents who aren't licensed and the child could be raised by the state (as if, that's not happening already LOL), who then grow up to owe some kind of service to the government. Seeing as how the government would pour in so many resources (food, shelter, education) into unlicensed children, they could have skilled workers (cheaper scientists and engineers, for one.. if AI technology doesn't render obsolete even those roles) at sub-market value. The children wouldn't be second class citizens, but they would have to pay back their upbringing through garnished wages.
Granted, this would be pretty dystopian, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's some fiction out there with this kind of reality.
[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You could impose harsh penalties on the parents who aren't licensed
The problem with this is that you're projecting. If there was a $1M fine for having a kid without a license that would cause you and I to not have a kid without a license. However, you're probably not the sort of person who is going to irresponsibly have a kid you can't afford in the first place, and neither am I.
The kinds of people who go pumping out babies they can't care for are also the sorts of people who don't think about what will happen 2 minutes after they do something let alone over the next decade. A fine just isn't going to make them think twice about it. And if you let them evade the fine by having an abortion you'll get all the pro-life folks screaming about it.
If you really want to prevent irresponsible people from having babies then you will have to implant them with contraceptives or sterilize them, so that they don't have to do anything to avoid getting pregnant.
Now, a lot of people around here are strong libertarian types, and on a lot of issues I fall into that category as well. The libertarian approach would be to let people have all the babies they want, and if the babies starve to death then they starve to death. Maybe we punish the parents for it, but we don't take care of the kids except for whatever charities might voluntarily choose to jump in. That is a completely workable approach, but of course our society would never buy into this. Once a baby gets born the "its for the children" laws will swoop in and you and I will be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to clean up some single mother's mess.
The children wouldn't be second class citizens, but they would have to pay back their upbringing through garnished wages.
I actually have another concept around basic income which is the complete opposite of this, and it is actually completely libertarian, provided you don't consider it a basic human right to be able to have children:
Everybody is sterilized or implanted with contraception across the board before puberty. In order to have a kid you need a license. There are no requirements for the license except paying a fee. The fee will be the cost of an annuity that will pay the child basic income for life, adjusted for the risk of multiple pregnancies. When the child is born they will receive basic income for life paid for by this annuity.
In this system no tax money is required to fund the basic income at all, and everybody is guaranteed to receive it. The system is completely accounted for, so it will never go bankrupt, baring unforeseen changes in life expectancy that mess up the actuarial tables. If you don't want to pay for UBI, then you simply don't have children.
The obvious objection is going to be that only the relatively well-off will be able to have kids. I imagine that an annuity that pays basic income for life might cost upwards of $600k or so ($20k/yr with increases for inflation at a 3.3% withdrawal rate, invested in equities with very low fees/overhead).
[–]Onkel_Adolf1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sterilize, then put them into the salt mines.
[removed]
[–]FrogMasta272 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Would that include our current rich parasites as well? If so, I'm all for it.
[–]mthrowaway52-2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
If they are rich though you can argue that they actually do contribute to society. Even if it's by spending their dead husband's money as fast as possible.
[–]FrogMasta272 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You can argue that the sky is orange as well, that doesn't make it true. There are plenty of rich people in our society that didn't earn their way there nor do they work for their money. Wealth is by no means a measure of virtue in our current society above the middle class level.
[+][deleted] 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Taxes, obviously.
You're going to end up dealing with it one way or another once automation puts half the population out of work.
However, I suspect that only letting people who can afford kids actually have them would probably save a boatload of tax dollars, so honestly I'm not sure how much it would cost in the net.
[+][deleted] 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
You'll still end up having to deal with it if they become criminals with no job prospects. You'll either pay the police to deal with them, or you'll pay private security to deal with them, or you'll have to live communally to run guard shifts to deal with them, or you'll pay for the stuff they break/steal when you don't do any of the previous things.
In order to use the second amendment you'll still need to do one of the things in my list. Even if you defend your own home if things get out of hand you'll have to team up with others and run shifts to do it effectively. Or you'll have to spend a fortune on securing your home so that it is defensible by a single person. Either way there is a significant cost to you.
I suggest to pay them off beforehand simply because it is humane. People can't help being born unemployable. Something like 15% of the population doesn't even meet the qualifications to join the infantry. As automation moves along that percentage will only go up.
[+][deleted] 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I would say most who are taking from others sweat are employable, they just refuse to do hard work. I have taken many hard physical jobs in my life when I had no choice.
You're talking about the past, and to some extent the present. I'm talking about the future. And there are plenty of people can't do physical jobs today. What do you do with somebody who is paralyzed and mentally retarded?
Honestly this is all a bit of a moot point because nobody is going to set up a sensible welfare system, just as nobody is going to leave you in peace. Welcome to America...
[+][deleted] 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
So you want to sterilize everybody or do you not understand what universal basic income is?
So, ideally I would sterilize everybody reversibly (or use implantable birth control, though I don't believe this currently exists for men).
However, participation in UBI could be made voluntary. I do know what UBI conventionally is, so I guess you could just call it BI.
[–]nosoupforyou0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
provided that all recipients are first sterilized
Isn't sterilization permanent?
Some forms are reversible. Obviously those would be preferable. Also, artificial insemination would be possible in the events where that didn't work. That might sound expensive, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to what children of parents who can't afford them cost taxpayers.
I'm also fine with something like implantable birth control, as long as it is illegal for a doctor to remove it without a permit/etc.
[–]nosoupforyou0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Didn't we already try that? I know in the 80's, some of the girls I knew had gotten pregnant and had been required to have birth control devices of some kind in their arms, because they were too stupid to remember to take pills or make their boyfriends wear condoms.
That is news to me, but I would do the implants BEFORE people have kids. A kid costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to raise. That is money somebody ends up forking out one way or another. Ideally the parent spends it to raise them well, but if not society spends it to raise them so-so, or spends even more indirectly if they're raised poorly.
[–]nosoupforyou0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Preaching to the choir. Problem is that we'd need to force everyone to implant such devices in their daughters, and this would raise hell with everyone claiming their daughters practice abstinence. It would never pass. Plus, I'm not sure I'd hold with such mandatory types of things.
Not to mention the women that WANT their daughters to get pregnant in order to start receiving monthly checks. Probably not a lot but I'm sure there are some.
On the other hand, maybe we'll have something that makes guys sterile until reversed, without requiring an operation.
Will still be some guys that want to get girls pregnant and refuse the treatment but it should reduce the problem.
Well, in my proposal it is all voluntary. You just wouldn't get basic income unless you complied.
But, it will never actually happen that way, because gynocentrism...
[–]Philletto0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It does seem like the dumbest people have the most kids.
Or allergies. The first few years of life are a test to see if you can make it. There's protected bubs who will drop dead if they ever come in contact with eggs, milk, peanuts. Nice law suit coming to the school, restaurant, movie theater, motel ...
Lets just get the allergic gene flaws out of circulation ;)
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
So you support communism with even more restrictions. This would put you in servitude of the state. Capitalism is the only way to go we just need to not have empathy for the losers and quit throwing them welfare money which enables them to reproduce. Do not support universal basic income. That’s absolutely retarded. You’re putting all of the burden on the government to regulate and ration everything.
[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
UBI isn't really communism. Communism is defined as:
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs
UBI does not involve public ownership of all property, and no attempt is made to pay individuals by either their ability or need.
And FWIW, I think that given a few decades everybody will be a loser, unless you are born to a wealthy family. When a computer can do everything a person can do there will be no employment (of humans at least). Goods will be dirt cheap, but you'll need to rely on money from somebody else to buy any of it.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
So UBI is not a person getting paid for their abilities and needs? What is it? Everyone getting paid the same? That will really piss off everyone that works harder jobs which is what happens in communist societies. You would be giving people no incentive to work harder or to innovate. Don’t think just because you own your property you won’t be forcefully removed from your home and have it seized by the government for being in debt. It won’t just hurt your credit. Watch Turd Flinging Monkey’s video called “Universal Basic Income is Communism.” He is well educated on economics. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VjZS7ynrzkU
[–]fmanly2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
What is it? Everyone getting paid the same?
UBI is typically an equal payment to every citizen that has a pulse.
That will really piss off everyone that works harder jobs which is what happens in communist societies.
UBI has nothing to do with getting paid for a job.
Suppose you make $50k today. If UBI were instituted you'd still make $50k, and you'd also get a UBI payment for maybe $12k/yr or something like that. If you didn't work you'd get the $12k/yr but obviously wouldn't get a paycheck. A doctor might make $250k/yr, and he would get the $12k/yr from basic income.
Typically you'd eliminate minimum wage with such a system, so low-wage jobs probably would see pay go down. High-wage jobs probably wouldn't see too much of a change.
You would be giving people no incentive to work harder or to innovate.
Not at all. With UBI you keep everything you make, well, minus taxes, which probably would be higher on higher incomes, but that isn't a huge change from the status quo.
People on public assistance today would actually have more incentive to work, because their benefits wouldn't be reduced if they started working.
Watch Turd Flinging Monkey’s video called “Universal Basic Income is Communism.”
While I like a lot of TFM's stuff, honestly his stance on UBI is generally not super-well-informed.
Whether UBI is "communism" depends on your definition of communism. The thing about communism/socialism is that everybody loves to play with the definition. When they see a program they don't like they'll stretch the definition to call it communism. Then when they want to explain why it will fail, they contract the definition to make it equal soviet-style communism, which of course has failed numerous times.
I wouldn't call TFM "well-educated on economics." He just isn't an idiot, which is the level of knowledge most people have of economics.
In any case, I don't bother arguing for UBI because it is essentially inevitable. When unemployment hits 50% there won't be anything anybody can do to stop it. Granted, the government will probably find some way to screw it up and add 300% extra overhead.
Half the benefit of UBI is that it is simple - you just mail everybody a flat check every month, which means almost zero overhead. Obviously you have to pay for it, but the actual distribution is simple. This is in contrast with most existing welfare systems where there is a ton of money spent trying to figure out who does and doesn't get it, and how much.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link
Taxes would have to be astronomically high to afford that. What do you think the corporations and the rich people are going to do? They will move out of the country. Hell all the corporations are already moving out and you’re talking about taxing them 10 times worse. Then who is going to be paying the taxes when all the rich people leave? Hmmmm. Not to mention the country would go to shit because we couldn’t afford anything else like Medicare, social security, military funding, government funding, education, jails. The government wouldn’t even jail people they would just start killing people because they couldn’t afford to jail them and keep them alive. Sounds like communism. I wouldn’t worry too much about automation. The free market will always balance itself out. People won’t have to work as much since goods would be so cheap that you could work a part time job as a waiter and still get by. More jobs will be created as companies will have more of a budget. Upkeep on robots would be necessary. Jobs to maintain and improve infrastructure will be created. It will not be this dire scenario everyone thinks that it will be.
[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Taxes would have to be astronomically high to afford that. What do you think the corporations and the rich people are going to do? They will move out of the country.
Income taxes have been more than double their current rates and yet there are still plenty of rich people here. In general people don't tend to change countries merely because of taxes.
Also, they probably wouldn't have to go up quite as much as you're thinking, because this would be in lieu of many existing social programs.
For example, you bring up social security, but there would be no need for social security if there were UBI. It would already cover reasonable living expenses.
I wouldn’t worry too much about automation. The free market will always balance itself out.
Oh, the free market certainly will balance itself out. Just keep in mind that the free market only seeks to efficiently value things. If the economic value of you as a person is $100/yr, then it will efficiently ensure that you're paid $100/yr. I'm a big proponent of the free market and oppose things like minimum wage, jobs programs, and so on. I'm all for letting corporations run their business efficiently. Heck, if there were UBI I'd even get rid of workplace safety laws - if people think a place is unsafe to work in then they shouldn't work there. I would maintain antitrust law because competition is necessary for a healthy market, and I would maintain laws around truth in advertising and fraud because an efficient market requires participants to have access to information.
People won’t have to work as much since goods would be so cheap that you could work a part time job as a waiter and still get by.
Why would you hire a human to be a waiter when a computer can do the job at a higher level of quality and less cost?
Upkeep on robots would be necessary.
Absolutely - which is why there will be robots for fixing the robots, and for that matter robots for designing new robots, eventually.
Sure, this won't all happen overnight. As with all automation the jobs that are easier to automate will get automated first.
You should check out Jordan Peterson's talks on IQ. The fact is that people aren't born equal. Some people have more talent/IQ/etc, and some people have less. As automation advances the bar just slowly gets raised higher and higher. Some people will move on to higher-skill jobs, but there will always be people who fall through the cracks.
You also get the bell curve effect. IQ/skills are typically distributed along a normal curve. As you raise requirements to have a job, at first you're at the bottom of the curve, and relatively few people become unemployable. If you make it impossible for anybody with an IQ under 50 to get a job that doesn't effect many people, because very few people have an IQ that low. If you raise the bar to 60 again few are effected. And so on as you get up to 80 or so. Peterson's sense is that we're around 85 right now - if you're below 85 you're basically going to be making pizzas for the rest of your life if you are reasonably disciplined. If that starts going higher you'll see much more drastic effects because the curve is starting to get higher. Once the bar hits 100 you'll have 50% unemployment, and then the disease will actually slow down as raising the bar actually affects fewer people, assuming progress is linear with respect to IQ (which may not be the case - if you believe the singularity folks one day we'll wake up and wonder what happened).
Now, I just chose IQ as one aspect of skill, and you would be right to point out that it isn't the only one, and IQ alone is only a good predictor of employment to a degree (once you get above 120 arguably it is less of a benefit to employability). However, I'd argue that virtually ALL aspects of human performance fit a curve of one sort or another. Once upon a time a strong back was enough for a job, but that was one of the first things to be replaced. Just being able to walk and having reasonable dexterity makes a job impossible to automate if it has to be done on-site as robots can't walk today. However, all of these skills also have distribution - not everybody is cut out to be a carpenter or plumber (and we only need so many of them anyway). And when robots start walking and have reasonable dexterity/coordination/etc those jobs will be at risk.
Sure, I think it will be decades before people become unemployable, but technology advances far faster than evolution. Everything about people is finite, and everything about a person can thus be replaced in time. Maybe if we turn into cyborgs there might be more room for long-term employment, assuming that human-cyborgs are competitive with pure robots (which may not be the case - at least not in the way people typically think of cyborgs where the brain is still human).
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
No restaurant is going to buy robots to do a waiters job when they’re paying them $2.30 an hour cmon man. Companies aren’t going to automate everything. It will be expensive as hell. If I owned a company and I automated jobs I would still want people around for security purposes and to monitor the robots and the products their making. People would still want the human element and interaction in their business. We are way too far off from being able to program robots to do everything a human can do. They can do tedious jobs now but they aren’t going to be able to do everything. Low paying jobs are not going to buy robots to replace people since it will cost too much money. Delivery driving jobs are not going to be automated. You think a company is going to purchase self driving cars and buy the robot to pick the food up and deliver it to the customer? No it’s not affordable and if an accident occurred they would be sued to death. If we ever do get to the point of robots doing everything and the world is running on solar power then we can start to think about a UBI. Till then everyone who is a dumbass that can’t find a job or a way to get by is a loser and they should do us all a favor and see an early grave. Sorry life’s not fair. By the way the newer generations are getting emasculated and dumber so I wouldn’t count on them to innovate anything especially be able to understand how to program a robot. We are on a technological decline now thanks to feminism and the war on men. Less men are going to college now and they aren’t pursuing higher learning in fear of these whores and rightfully so. When companies can’t fill positions based on people not being smart enough they will start to lower their standards and train people for the job instead of expecting them to know how to do it already.
[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
No restaurant is going to buy robots to do a waiters job when they’re paying them $2.30 an hour cmon man.
You're never going to get rid of the minimum wage unless you first institute basic income, because waiters would be starving on $2/hr.
However, if there was UBI covering the essentials of life, and somebody wanted to work for $2/hr for some extra spending money, and an employer found that to be a good deal, then I'm all for it.
Keep in mind that robots will only get cheaper. What makes you think that they would be any more expensive to maintain than a person?
If I owned a company and I automated jobs I would still want people around for security purposes and to monitor the robots and the products their making.
You can have robots do security. That is probably one of the earlier jobs to be automated because a robot is actually much more suited to security than a person. They're disposable, so they're not going to go reaching for their gun if they get spooked, but they will be willing to risk their "lives" to catch the bad guy. They'd be a great deterrent too because who wants to go breaking into a building if there is a robot prowling around that can see in the dark, detect sound and IR through walls, has tasers built into its hands, can sprint full out faster than a person indefinitely, and which can capture video of the intruder and have police on their way the instant it sights them?
Till then everyone who is a dumbass that can’t find a job or a way to get by is a loser and they should do us all a favor and see an early grave. Sorry life’s not fair.
So, I will agree that this is a completely practical way to run a country. However, it does not represent the values of a majority of US voters, so you'll never see this happen.
However, because our society isn't proactive it will spend a lot more taking care of people, and do a worse job of it. Frontline had a good episode that showed a man who had cost $60k in ER bills due to asthma issues, and it turned out that what he really needed was a $500 drywall repair in his house. Our society passes laws that ensure he gets his $60k ER care (at your expense when they raise your rates because he won't ever pay that bill), but because of a mindset of not wanting to "waste" money on non-essentials we'll never pay $500 to fix his house.
With something like UBI the recipient can allocate the money however they think is best. Sure, some will waste it on booze and drugs, and we'll need programs to deal with that if it is a major issue.
By the way the newer generations are getting emasculated and dumber so I wouldn’t count on them to innovate anything especially be able to understand how to program a robot. We are on a technological decline now thanks to feminism and the war on men.
This simply isn't reality. You can't have a technological decline unless you literally start burning books and such. Even if the last generation produced 1000 Einsteins and the next only produces 10, those 10 still know everything the previous 1000 did because it is all written down, and they will advance science further during their lifetimes.
You don't need everybody to be able to program robots. You just need a few people to do it, because automation is a force multiplier. You don't need 10x more iphone designers just because 10x as many people are buying iphones. Sure, if you have money coming in you might choose to hire more designers, but the nature of automation is that it is hard to build the first time and easy to repeat. Eventually robots will get to the point where they can design themselves and then you don't need anybody to do the work.
Ultimately you've hit what I think this all boils down to: if you think highly of poor people you're going to want them to get a job. If you think most poor people just don't have what it takes to get a job, then you're going to look for an efficient way to deal with them while writing them off and worrying about how to make the next generation turn out better. And hence the reason I think UBI recipients ought to be required to accept sterilization.
If someone is continuously looking for a job then they should be able to collect unemployment until they can find one. But they would need to be constantly looking for a job and we would need people to monitor them to make sure that they are. It is wrong to assume that a company would just not hire people if all the applicants who applied weren’t qualified. It would be a rotating door of employees until they find the right one who learns how to do it. Humans are capable of great things when their life depends on it. People would be so grateful to that job that they would be giving 250% of the effort that someone gives now since jobs nowadays are taken for granted especially by women. Jobs are hiring women that don’t know what the fuck they’re doing and don’t even want to be there just because they need to fill that position. Seems reasonable to hire a man that would bust his ass.
So, none of this is going to change the fact that companies will hire unqualified women over qualified men. That is gynocentrism and UBI has nothing to do with trying to cure that.
Ensuring that people are constantly seeking jobs costs money because somebody needs to do the babysitting. If unemployment starts going up towards 50%+ you'd end up paying 5% of the population just to confirm that the other 45% are still jobless.
One of the benefits of UBI is that it requires basically no administration. Sure, the tax side would still require administration as it does today, but the benefits side does not, because as soon as somebody gets a birth certificate they would go into a database and a computer would start mailing them checks (or maybe you start it at age 18 - no harder to administer).
[–]MyLittlePonyofDoom-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I agree. You should mak a post on r/debatethealtright as a way to enhance all races. Its an idea it has the potential to make mankind great again. If we want mankind to exist in a world of finite resources then we should optimise our race by enhancing its capacity to exploit the earth not have some dumbasses being subsidised.
[–]turtleh-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Holy shit yes I agree. The sterilization thing is key.
[–]DreadPirateRosco2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Besides, think about our quality of life in terms of creature comforts. Even if you work at McDonalds, if you're in a small enough town you can still afford your own apartment, arrange for public transportation, make your own lunches, buy plenty of food, have a flat screen tv and cable, money for a movie or good restaurant for dinner every few weeks. Your apartment will have AC and heat. You'll be able to afford a smart phone. You're connected. And if you do your job, you'll advance in the ranks and afford even more comforts for yourself. What's the problem? Historically, that's the jackpot! People from third world countries are clamoring to get into our country and are happy to take our shit jobs. Anyone with a measure of competence and drive can do well for themselves in a modern 1st world country.
[–]utopista1141 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
Marx would have a thrombosis if he read what this (probably lady) wrote.
[–]kaczan343 points44 points45 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Women literally don't understant that money comes directly from the value created by the person doing the job. They think job is just something you get assaigned, like a parkin space, and then money falls from the sky.
[–]NiceIce12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
They don't even think about it. Everybody has money, right?
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Liberal has many methods to grow money, like from space meteors, harvesting from trees, by taking money from others' wallets, from illegals etc.
The only way they don't think it will work is to earn it with highly demanded and specialized skills. Liberals are the only ones that won't believe in skills.
[–][deleted] 32 points33 points34 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The blurred out name looks like a dick.
[–]sidel37 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Good eye.
[–]ShrunkenHed30 points31 points32 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
The idiocracy has been here since about 1995. Over 2 decades.
[+][deleted] 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]JayJayEcks14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Amazing though. The left took over academia and then treat grad students and PhD students like utter slaves, as they reach for their terminal degrees or status.
[–]robowriter5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The idiocracy's called social justice, communism, identity politics, same difference.
[–][deleted] 25 points26 points27 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Reminds me of what a colleague of mine who escaped South Africa said was going on.
They sacked almost everyone who knew shit about policing because they were white. Now the police are useless. Everyone with money relies on armed security to shoot people who are trying to rob/rape/kill them. Then the police show up afterwards and fill the paperwork out for justifying use of deadly force. Crime is out of control. Murders are 3 or 4 times what they were under apartheid.
He worked as a mechanic. He was a specialist in VW and Mercedes vehicles. Couldn't get a job. His dealership sacked him and gave the jobs to useless black alcoholics who couldn't fix a tea pot. He managed to get a casual job as a bodyguard till he managed to get a job in the UK and get out.
[–]MadPreacher1AD18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Isn't the liberal education system grand?
LOL That's an excellent reply.
[–]BokehClasses19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Communism coming to a city near you!
[–]W00jie16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
3 years of College and 10 years on the job training as an engineer and instead I could have just told my boss that he has to be more inclusive, who knew.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx. I think it failed spectacularly after 70 years of trying - using any methods imaginable. Wanna try it again?
[–]deadBeefCafe20141 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Anyone smart enough to produce justifiably gets outraged supporting those who choose not to produce. This is why communism cannot scale. A small group can not afford to have any real freeloaders, so they get their shit together.
[–]ChaiR6195 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Not to get off topic but the censored name looks like a pink dildo.
[–]Jarwanator5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
A clear representation of what the majority of people think what the OP of that post is.
[–]Idontgotnopancakemix3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I’m a pilot, and this is not far from the truth in the wake of a hard push for diversity among our pilot group. I’ve been passed over for jobs in favor of female candidates, even though I’m equally (if not more) qualified. Don’t get me wrong, the FAA is very stringent when it comes to ATP (airline transport pilot) certification minima, but once those are met, the girls go first. Most women in aviation put in the hard work, but now there’s a small collection of entitled brats whose only strength is their gender and they know it, so it’s what they lead with. It’s a constant bidding war between “my vagina” and “my legitimate experience.”
[–]monty932 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Right, because abilities are innate and can't be learnt, am I right?
[–]eightgaydiamonds2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Troll post?
[–]thewowdog0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, pretty easy to find the guy.
[–]robowriter2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Standard narrative in the new society designed for us. After most of unskilled workplace gets replaced by robots or automated.
[–]Dan_Vanedzin2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think this may be referring to her fellow teachers....
"Teacher, I don't understand this calculus question"
"Uhhh, well sucks, I dunno too, I just read and copy the book that they gave me dude, I mean, I'm here for the money, not that I taught anyone.....geez"
[–]ManmadeDoomsday2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yep, things are going downhill fast. We'd better get to a safe place and watch as shit hits the fan.
[–]247spyz4life1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's ok if you're 'tarded. My ex-wife was a tard. I think she's like, a pilot now
[–]Iceklimber1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
In the other thread this was posted people said it was ironic account.
We have to be honest here and steer clear of Fake News
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
I lived in a tent for months so I could afford to work only part time in order to build skills full time.
Literally sacrificed living in an apartment to live in a tent for 5 months on a farm at one point, in order to spend several entire full-time work weeks learning skills.
That was 5 years ago. Was making $13/hr after that, with my first job using the design skills. Soon after, $17/hr and 21/hr for basic website design. Now, after another job and grad school data-related courses, I make $50/hr at my first real web programming job.
Next job I expect to pay about $65-75/hr.
I've lived a year of my life in a tent to pursue skills and adventure. And bitches are complaining about having no skills... try making temporary lifestyle sacrifices in order to take time off from regular work to build more valuable skills.
Bitches will never understand skills.
Why? They have no drive or social conditioning to accumulate resources. Men do. That's why we build skills-- society tells us our value is dependent upon our resource accumulation ability.
[–]b_a_heel1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is sarcasm right?
[–]CyberPunk880 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Fucking hilarious
[–]Futureman9990 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Hilarious, but 100% troll
[–]relevantretriever0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
🤡 🤡 🤡
[–]Shimakaze40 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
LOL.
[–]frikabg0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Soooo lets not work or produce anything but get paid for! ;)
'#youaresmart '#iwishiwalikeu '#ugogurl
If you've got no abilities, then you actually do believe that no one else has abilites better than you.
[–]FreeManIsFrank0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The future is Idiocracy™
AKA, the future is female.
Someone make a movie based on this please
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]ZealousMathematician149 points150 points151 points (89 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 75 points76 points77 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]febreezing_hobos0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly61 points62 points63 points (80 children) | Copy Link
[–]orphancrippla47 points48 points49 points (28 children) | Copy Link
[–]ApoAlaia20 points21 points22 points (25 children) | Copy Link
[–]Mister_Mask25 points26 points27 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]ApoAlaia3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Philletto3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rick_OShay11 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly-1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Rick_OShay10 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]squeezeonein9 points10 points11 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]fmanly2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ApoAlaia2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MGTOW_Monger0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]lipidsly1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]ApoAlaia1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]lipidsly2 points3 points4 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]ApoAlaia2 points3 points4 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]lipidsly2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]ApoAlaia0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]notacrookatall0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]eloquentnemesis2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]lipidsly2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]based_meme2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]based_meme0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Onkel_Adolf1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[–]FrogMasta272 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]mthrowaway52-2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]FrogMasta272 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (9 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nosoupforyou0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]nosoupforyou0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]nosoupforyou0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Philletto0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly2 points3 points4 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MyLittlePonyofDoom-1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]turtleh-1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DreadPirateRosco2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]utopista1141 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kaczan343 points44 points45 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]NiceIce12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 32 points33 points34 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]sidel37 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ShrunkenHed30 points31 points32 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]JayJayEcks14 points15 points16 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]robowriter5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 25 points26 points27 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MadPreacher1AD18 points19 points20 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BokehClasses19 points20 points21 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]W00jie16 points17 points18 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]deadBeefCafe20141 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ChaiR6195 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Jarwanator5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Idontgotnopancakemix3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]monty932 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]eightgaydiamonds2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]thewowdog0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]robowriter2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dan_Vanedzin2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ManmadeDoomsday2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]247spyz4life1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Iceklimber1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]b_a_heel1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CyberPunk880 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Futureman9990 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]relevantretriever0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Shimakaze40 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]frikabg0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Philletto0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FreeManIsFrank0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link