They have a very right-wing government that has been rolling back decades of progress the country has made. Democracy can be fickle, sadly.

Only hundreds? That seems like a very small force.

Nah I just think it’s funny you think you’re some brave truth teller lol

Sorry that was grammatically unclear. I meant opposing restrictions on abortion. I agree with you.

No one cares about your opinions lol. How are you not getting this?

Starting to remind me a bit of a yappy dog…

I never claimed to endorse that view. You certainly can be downvoted for speaking truth. That’s just not the case here.

Usually this is the case when you are polite and articulate but get no serious replies and only downvotes. In other words, people downvote because they can’t dispute what you’re saying.

When you post a snarky one-liner that ignores the question at hand in favor of some belligerent tribal attitude, that’s just a low quality comment that belongs at the bottom of the thread. There’s nothing to contest because there’s no substance, so downvotes are the most appropriate response.

There is a weird contingent of “libertarians” who are very close to just fascists who hate taxes. It makes no sense but I attribute it to the political magnetism of Trump and similar fascist leaders. These people clearly don’t fit any sane definition of libertarian but I think they just continue to identify that way because they used to and they aren’t aware they’ve gone off the deep end.

They aren’t all like that though.

However, I disagree that there aren’t valid justifications for some of the specific examples you gave that go beyond a desire to repress people. Some people have been deeply harmed by the state and do not wish to be subject to its logic or control and I respect that choice.

Or maybe it just doesn’t answer the question lol.

“I’m downvoted, it must be because I’m right!” is a very silly conclusion here.

Keep in mind that a lot of political words are contentious and can have multiple definitions.

But in the broadest senses, a libertarian would be someone who orients their politics towards the pursuit or protection of liberty. This can take many forms. In the US at least, many libertarians tend to focus on reducing government interventions in their lives, opposing things like taxes, gun control, abortion and speech restrictions, etc.

Anarchists could be considered a subset of libertarians. However, they go much further in that they believe in the total abolition of the state. Most anarchists also believe in the total abolition of all relationships involving the domination of people by other people. This typically includes things like capitalism, racial hierarchies, gender hierarchies, or even hierarchies over children.

So a quick distinction might be that libertarians want a minimal state while anarchists want no state.

Yeah unfortunately we can’t use that for southerners or they will lose their shit.

DHS does nothing important and it should never be funded again.

Well this actually happened to me so I can speak from experience when I say mildly surprised. He’s a distant cousin though so maybe it would have been a bigger surprise if it was a first cousin. He married an heiress.

If you want to maintain the trees in good health I would recommend cutting them back. Go around the tree and cut every vine in two places, removing a small section between to prevent them from healing. Do not pull larger sections of vine from the tree as this can severely damage the bark.

Oh so this is propaganda. I was wondering.

Thanks for clarifying, I can now downvote all of these.

I’m torn between satisfaction and fear that what replaces it could be worse.

Yeah I could believe people change. Maybe she was ignorant when she got into it and wanted to right the wrongs she committed. But then to run against someone who is already fighting against ICE? It feels more like opportunism than redemption. Maybe put in some pro-bono work for a few years and then come back if you really mean it.

But that’s the crux of the disagreement. They can work anywhere.

You claimed that building better infrastructure won’t solve our transportation issues because our cities were built for cars while Dutch cities weren’t. None of that is true.

But I’m not sure why you want me to repeat the entire debate we just had. I’ve already corrected the points you made above. If you’re still confused, read again and ask specific questions.

Because we haven’t built the necessary infrastructure. Also because people don’t like change. Getting around without a car is a skill that will need to be developed, and most people have little reason to develop it. That will probably resolve naturally over time, if the built environment allows people to experience cycling as a safe, convenient way to get around, and as people in your social network introduce you to urban cycling.

But I mean there are a lot of people, myself included, who do currently find it preferable. The difference is I’m willing to invest a little more time and experience some discomfort around safety. The more you chip away at those issues, the more people will cycle, which will improve safety and get more people familiar with the idea.

Well, then, again, I disagree and that’s why we’re arguing. How you describe the arguments you’re making is not relevant. The point is that they’re not accurate. With political will we could have the same experience as these kids in our urban centers. It’s only different because we haven’t changed it yet.