597
Certified global birthrate collapse moment
93% Upvoted
level 2
Op · 5 hr. ago
NAFTA
Idk probably those wired doomsday preper types you see on history channel with like 16 kids in Appalachia somewhere.
83
![User avatar](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="256" height="256"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
level 2
· 4 hr. ago
NATO
People who think our population is too low right now as opposed to realizing it's currently pretty high but will go down with low birthrates?
0
level 1
Sometimes I imagine in the future, under population will be such a problem, developed countries will basically have to bribe people from developing countries to come and live/work. It will be like the immigration draft where the best governed countries get the most immigrants.
49
level 2
That's basically what happens now except when immigrants arrive some of us treat them as unwanted. As population starts to *decline* things will get so much more extreme.
54
level 2
And it won't solve anything, it'll just bandaid the reality that infinite growth was a bad premise.
6
level 2
Developing countries have really low birth rates too. Basically everwhere except for certain sub-saharan African countries. Vietnam's birth rate last year was 0.9 for crying out loud
4
level 1
· 5 hr. ago
Jeff Bezos
Call me a moron or naive or whatever. But I 100% agree that population collapse is a way, way bigger risk than people realize. A whole lot of our civilization is built on the idea that tomorrow there will be more people doing stuff than there are today.
143
level 2
I feel this is overblown. With more automation and AI coming online what are the masses going to do? Smaller, smarter population might be better for the long term in economics + social stability + environmental sustainability
99
level 2
Population collapse only causes issues if it's rapid, similar to climate change. Currently it might be too rapid of a change.
54
level 2
Japan has this going on. If it’s slow enough, adjustments can be made. Not to say that they are great (decreasing social security funds), but not catastrophic as far as I can tell. In fact, if done at the right pace and right policies, this is a great thing for humanity and our planet.
28
level 2
· 4 hr. ago · edited 4 hr. ago
A whole lot of our civilization is built on the idea that tomorrow there will be more people doing stuff than there are today.
It's... not sustainable, is the problem.
Like, eventually from a resource perspective it's not, but I'm referring to how people don't have time or energy to have 2+ kids anymore. I've seen so many people on this sub call "not having kids a choice," as if it's some crime they're committing to intentionally sabotage the existence of the state, yet it just coincidentally is happening across the board in developed nations and even happening in many SE Asian countries now.
At the same time so many people on this sub advocate for Volker-type public policy, getting rid of safety nets and destroying welfare programs because they're unsustainable, but that will literally contribute to shrinking the population even further. The reality is that permanent booming growth of births just isn't sustainable as society advances. Ironically, the excesses in both luxury (i.e. there's more things to do than just work) and technology (i.e. life expectancy isn't 35 because 7/10 of your children died) are what directly contribute to this, and the only way to reverse it is to gear public policy to subdsidize people, much more than we do now, to have more children, which is likely way more expensive than the current social programs.
What else needs to consider is what the quality of childhood people are going to have if we're incentivizing people to both 1: Have parents working a job each and 2. Raising multiple kids at once. Do we just state-fund daycares that are open during normal working hours (and non-normal, to be honest) to keep these children occupied and safe? Do we pay women (or men) to stay at home for 3-4 years at a time so they can raise children?
A whole lot of our civilization is built on the idea that tomorrow there will be more people doing stuff than there are today.
tl;dr this is and has been bad for a long time, because society immediately naturally stops this once they become able to do it.
21
level 2
Maybe we should, I dunno, design an economy that doesn't require constant growth?
2
level 2
· 3 hr. ago
Milton Friedman
Population collapse is imo an order of magnitude more dangerous than climate change.
0
level 2
I think we have to, you know, actually try to encourage people to have kids before we can conclude that population collapse is some huge risk to society. Real incentives, not just a couple thousand bucks off your tax bill.
Let's start with affordable childcare. Because, as a person thinking about having kids, your options right now are basically: have 2 high incomes, become a 1 income household, or have grandparents willing to look after your kids while you work. Next, let's talk about how women are basically required to choose between having kids or fucking over their careers (which is an issue in the US, but an even bigger issue elsewhere)
1
level 1
Overpopulation is a problem in Egypt, Iraq and could become problems in most African countires since fertility rates in these countries aren't falling last decades like in Brazil or India. Falling populations would become problems in SouthEast& East Asia, Europe,North America.
21
level 2
· 4 hr. ago · edited 2 hr. ago
Overpopulation is only a problem in Iraq and Egypt because they largely live in a desert and built cities on all the fertile ground. They have solved this temporarily by importing grain from Ukraine and Russia but now that those two countries are at war they have major food issues.
32
level 2
It's not really an environmental problem there (though other problems are caused by overpopulation) because most of those countries produce very little CO2 per capita. Even though there are less people environmental issues with overpopulation are significantly larger in the US, Europe, etc. because of our lifestyles.
9
level 2
· 4 hr. ago
Thomas Paine
I don't think many people argue that it's going to cause some mass extinction? Just that's its going to be a drag on global economic growth and make life worse than the alternative, and that it's especially bad because most people want to have more kids than they are, which suggests a failing of society to meet preferences.
7
level 2
· 5 hr. ago
YIMBY
Yeah, we'll be fine. We're humans. We figure shit out. There being 1/3 fewer humans is no a bad thing long term for the health of the planet, so long as the reduction in population is gradual and accompanied by an increase in productivity.
Even in research fields, AI can replicate having 1,000 people working on a chemistry problem in a matter of minutes.
16
level 2
· 5 hr. ago
NATO
level 1
When the SCOTUS makes abortion and all forms of birth control illegal, there will be people on this sub proclaiming that the resulting population growth will be a net positive.
8
level 2
Making all three points on the graph wrong? Haha
There really is no winning with the criticism crowd. All complaints, no solutions. It really warms the heart.
2
level 1
Until like a year ago, I thought the idea that millennials needed money to have children was ridiculous because women in Niger have the highest birth rate and they’re a hell of a lot poorer than women in rich countries.
But unlike people in poor countries, people in rich countries typically have access to birth control, abortion, and a social safety net when they’re elderly. They also don’t typically need hands around the house to help with manual labor. It seems logical that those factors are driving up birth rates in places like Niger. Thus, if you want to increase birth rates in rich countries without doing bad things like outlawing abortion, birth control, forcing people to be subsistence farmers, or eliminating social security and Medicare, the only things left to target are the free time and money that people give up to have children.
In my view, the government should basically make it free to have children. All hospital bills for the pregnancy and delivery should be covered. Fertility treatments and maternity/paternity leave should be covered. Parents should receive a monthly stipend to cover the cost of basic necessities (childcare, food, etc.) for their first three children from birth until they reach 16 years old/working age. I don’t think people should make money off of having children but I think it should be zero cost to have up to three kids and provide them with basic necessities. If the birth rate is still falling after that, then so be it. But as we live in a society where the adversity that drives birth rates up has been mostly eliminated, we need to at least make an effort to eliminate the challenges that drive down birth rates.
6
level 2
In my view, the government should basically make it free to have children.
Gotta include housing in there but we treat that like a speculative investment vehicle
3
level 2
Why should we subsidize having children? Just let the population decline.
1
level 1
As collapse is the worst in East Asia we can only hope that Japan, Korea, Taiwan or China will develop artificial wombs
2
level 2
The problem isn't infertility.
The problem is a lack of desire among fertile women to raise more children.
Pregnancy itself is uncomfortable, painful, inconvenient, etc. It's a small pain point relative to having to spend the next 18 years raising that child.
So long as society doesn't award a massive amount of social status to mothers and makes their lives hard, women are not going to want to sign up for being in charge of raising lots of kids. It's just a lot of WORK and artificial wombs don't begin to address that problem.
8
level 1
· 31 min. ago
Henry George
I'm a bit more optimistic than most people here, i think automation will help blunt underpopulation issues and it won't be as bad as people here doom about.
2
level 1
Population growth is something both the public and scientists are worried about. There are plenty of effective actions to take to curb population growth that don't involve human rights violations), so please don't advocate for oppressive limits on the number of children other people can have. Rather, if you want to help curb overpopulation, it might help to reduce childhood mortality by, say, donating to the Against Malaria Foundation, or donating to girls' education to reduce fertility. Roughly 32 million unplanned births occur each year. Even in developed countries, unintended pregnancies are common and costly, and can have deleterious effects on offspring, including a higher risk of maltreatment. Implants, IUD, and sterilization are the most effective forms of birth control (yet sterilization is often denied to women who know they don't want children) and policies which give young people free access to the most reliable forms of birth control can greatly reduce unintended pregnancies. If you're interested in preventing unwanted pregnancies in the U.S., consider advocating for Medicare for All or Single Payer, and help get the word out that it is ethical to give young, single, childless women surgical sterilization if that is what they want. Comprehensive sex education would go a long way, too, and many states do not include it in their curricula. Many men don't know how to use a condom properly, and that really makes a difference.
16
level 2
Birth rates are negative in the entire developed world, usually rather significantly.
All population growth is now coming out of Africa and the Middle East.
Outside of those regions, virtually no other countries are slated to continue growing much beyond today given the current birthrates.
36
level 2
Most people live in countries with sub replacement birth rates.
Latin America, where the bulk of America's current immigrants come from, is also experiencing big declines in birth rates.
The whole world is dealing with the same problem. You can't import people from other countries if they were never born.
5
level 1
The solution is to extend healthy life expectancy. In a society where people work up to 100 years old and live up to 120 years old , the current population pyramid has no problem. Realizing it in several decades is realistic.
5
level 2
· 3 hr. ago
Edmund Burke
We've made very little progress in quality of life past age 75 in the last 100 years of medical advances. It would be great if you were right, but we should absolutely not count on any of the anti-aging research panning out in the near future.
10
level 2
· 3 hr. ago
George Soros
There's no realistic path to raising the retirement age to fucking 100 even if that was somehow desirable. People that age physically can't work full time even in perfect health.
11
level 1
Imagine a world with more wildlife areas and less competition for basic areas.
Housing and climate problems dissapear. Based population decline.
3
level 2
· 2 hr. ago
everyone is a communist except for me
Housing problems will be largely unaffected because it's not about total housing vs total population, it's about housing within X travel distance of points of interest.
Obviously in the short run a Thanos snap would collapse the housing market. However in the long run people will build cities based on the population near them, and the housing crisis will come back just like it always does. Unless of course cities do a good job of swiftly upzoning when needed, and ideally tax land as well.
3
level 2
· 3 hr. ago
Enby Pride
We can feed another 3 billion humans on the agricultural land we currently use, without any significant tech advancements, just by reducing the amount of grain we feed to livestock and instead feed it to humans. We can increase wilderness areas if we densified the suburbs, cut food waste to reduce the amount of farmland we use, replaced more land livestock with sustainable fishing, etc.
“Population decline” means lots of people needlessly dying.
8
level 2
Mod
· 5 hr. ago
· 5 hr. ago AOC/DOP Regulations Stan
Rule III: Bad faith arguing
Engage others assuming good faith and don't reflexively downvote people for disagreeing with you or having different assumptions than you. Don't troll other users.
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
2
level 1
Billions of people in low income countries, with rapidly increasing populations, trying to get to a western lifestyle of air conditioning, cars, and hamburgers everyday be a giant environmental catastrophe.
Rich countries, with negative birth rates, running out of people to buy stuff and run stuff.
How are these contradictory?
Unless you think it's magically going to work itself out with immigration, but that doesn't consider that people are extremely racist.
1
level 1
I am in the minority perhaps but I… kind of think 7 billion people is a lot and a reduction in population would not be the worst thing ever. It might be able to let less developed nations catch up and for those people their quality of life would be greatly improved. We already see this in some areas.
Having said that, people already are working on artificial wombs. If that were to be sustainable, and yes we are still a long ways from that being available and safe, but if it was available and safe, we would basically be able to mass produce humans, and at that point I have a hard time imagining some sort of distinction isn’t subconsciously placed on people born “artificially” compared to people conceived naturally. It would definitely be a tough situation for humans overall.
1
level 1
I feel like we’re just at the beginning of a sine wave. Population has historically gone up, it’s poised to go down now, and I’d expect that eventually it’d go back up.
Also worth noting that cities are sort of insulated from this; tokyo has continued to grow for instance
1
More posts from the neoliberal community
2.2k
![Silver](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="32" height="32"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
2.2k
1.9k
1.8k
1.8k
1.8k
1.4k
1.4k
Originally posted on r/ActiveMeasures by u/LRLOP-TA. Reposted here with their permission-- all credit to them!
Previous posts here and here by robotevil on this topic were welcome, so I hope this follow-up is too. I got permission to post this on a throwaway.
TL;DR
For years the (Russia-backed?) head mod of r/MurderedByAOC and other popular left-leaning subs, LRLOurPresident, has been posting propaganda to anger, misinform, and demoralize US progressives and encourage them to stop voting. They reinforce this by using bots/alts that copy-paste their past comments immediately after a post goes up. For a long time LRLOP and the alts only talked about US student debt cancellation, and had been in hibernation ever since Russian sanctions began after its invasion of Ukraine. While LRLOP was gone, the only other active mod, voice-of-hermes, has been working overtime to delete posts/comments critical of tankies and Russia in LRLOP's subs. Now LRLOP and the bots are back, using US progressive politicians to push a new pro-Russia narrative.
The History
Despite the name, r/MurderedByAOC doesn't have much from AOC or murders by anyone, really. It used to be that a long time ago, but for over a year it's typically consisted of one person posting misinformation/propaganda designed for enraged and increasingly apathetic progressives to latch on to, then using alt sock puppet accounts to immediately copy/paste old comments (so they're likely to be seen first and upvoted to the top, comments were often gilded immediately for this purpose as well). In the meantime, the post immediately gets massive upvotes (probably by bots, it's easy to buy upvotes on reddit, but who knows) to boost it towards the front page where it can rise more organically.
The person behind this is LRLOurPresident (tho people often mistakenly think it's "IRL" which is a different user that's already been banned, while LRLOP is still going). Here's some of the best examples of the kind of "propaganda" posts they've made:
This one is my favorite. Obviously Black Americans don't own 48% of all student debt as the tweet says. Here's the actual data
Guys, Biden is "To the right of a literal fascist"! No actually Bolsonaro forgave some late fees for a fraction of a fraction of the Brazilian population just before an election. If you're interested in more actual details
Hillary the next presidential nominee? Or just an opinion piece by a hack for the New York Post, a tabloid. Like most posts, this one is designed to just anger progressives
This is literally just a picture of Biden walking away with its own narrative slapped on. There was no "abrupt" end to that day's press conference, it went on for hours
Anyway, after a post was made, comments immediately started popping up, wow that was fast! Actually these are alt/bot accounts obviously controlled by LRLOurPresident. They would copy/paste their old comments, mostly to r/MurderedByAOC but sometimes other subs within LRLOurPresident's network of 20 subs they mod, with only minor or no variations. Even a quick glance at their comment history reveals this:
finalgarlicdis crambledont DrWaxu DCokeSpoke
These were the only alt accounts for a LONG time, but haven't been seen in a while (since the Russian sanctions) and are slowly being replaced. Lately new bot accounts have been popping up, usually created within minutes of a post with a prepared comment to immediately copy-paste. Mostly they just copy-paste comments from themselves or other bots, though the most recent ones sometimes write something slightly more original, and many are likely controlled by another mod (more on that later). Some are even shadowbanned on reddit (but their comments get mod-approved anyway):
originaltas 500lettersize lettergetterbetter aquapropazicene recruitcat desktopramtr juniormemento okcriver servicewithastyle nooneedle lowerbullfrogalfalfa jazzlikeenergydelay
Anyone pointing out the copy/pasted responses of this bot network in the comments are deleted ASAP to keep up the scam (but running MBAOC posts through reveddit.com reveals this).
Lots of lies hits spread in political subreddits were nurtured in r/MurderedByAOC by these bots. For over a year they've been focused on Biden and the Democrats to sow division:
When it appears Biden isn't doing enough, repeating that he said "Nothing will fundamentally change". Actual context: Said to wealthy people to assure them taxes increasing wouldn't really affect them
Biden and the Democrat congress have done literally nothing! Well except for this list of dozens of things...
Biden hasn't followed through on his campaign promise to forgive $10K in student debt by executive order (He said he would do this if Congress gave him a bill to do so, not by EO)
Biden said he'd cancel $50K in student debt by EO! (There is no context for this, it's literally just made up and repeated by the bots enough that others assume it's true)
Who's the architect of and solely responsible for legislation disallowing student debt from being discharged during bankruptcy? Of course it's Joe Biden! Except the bill was written by a Republican and would have passed an R majority Senate anyway, he just voted for it. (Also saying it can never be discharged isn't true, though it's certainly NOT easy and few try)
LRLOurPresident's "sanctioned" vacation
Once sanctions against Russia began after its invasion of Ukraine, LRLOP's posts went from near-daily to about once a month. With LRLOP stepping back, the only active mod in MBAOC and a dozen other LRLOP subreddits was voice-of-hermes, who ever since Russia invaded Ukraine has gone mask-off as a "Yes daddy Putin please flatten me" tankie. Or has he? Really their entire worldview boils down to "USA bad", so NATO and Ukraine bad, so constantly supporting Russian propaganda is really just a cRaZy side-effect. Surely it's a coincidence too that reveddit reveals they've been deleting anti-Russia comments and those that encourage voting in any subreddit they mod (including non-LRLOP "leftist unity" subs, AKA tankies welcome/encouraged).
voice-of-hermes takes a day off from being terminally online allowing this thoughtful post in r/DemocraticSocialism calling out tankies with LOTS of agreement in the comments to actually gain traction before being removed
Gets downvotes on MBAOC for supporting RT (RussiaToday) host claiming US is lying about Russia preparing to invade Ukraine, then deletes the entire submission in shame when Russia invades the next day
Deletes all comments encouraging voting so there's a spotlight on his response (click "show hidden replies")
When the only active mod calls anyone slightly right of Bernie a liberal/neoliberal and anyone to the right of that a fascist and ensures the sub's posts and comments reflect that, the end result is you could be a fan of Bernie/AOC or just progressive/leftist and yet find a sub like MBAOC or DemocraticSocialism surprisingly hostile, especially if you're not aware of how many comments get removed and assume "Well, I guess this is what progressives think?"
LRLOurPresident's return
All of LRLOP's posts (except one) since the sanctions 2.5 months ago are pro-Russia, and LRLOP is back to posting nearly every day:
Comes out for first time since the Russian invasion to... use Bernie to simp for Russia. Guys, ignore what the entire world is enraged about, what's really important is the US is JUST as bad. This submission comes after posting almost exclusively about cancelling student debt for MONTHS prior
Comes out again a month later just to steal someone else's post that got popular on MBAOC without them. No time to set up bot comments on this one when you're copying someone else's work
3rd, weeks later, not about Student Debt or Russia but Roe v Wade? Has LRLOP turned a new leaf? Oh it's because hours later once the post got 14k upvotes they sticky a comment to SIMP FOR RUSSIA AGAIN! As usual it's really easy to find the bots in the full comments, just look for the ones with awards
A day later, again using Ilhan to spread a pro-Russia message. This time the comments go off the rails, with everyone disagreeing and pointing out the propaganda in the alt's comments until over half the comments are deleted and the post is locked! Also the best evidence yet that bought upvotes are also used on bot comments: Their top-level comments have hundreds of upvotes yet additional comments underneath preaching the same pro-Russia anti-US/NATO sentiments have massive downvotes, one even sitting at -135. Maybe it's too expensive to upvote them all? All these bot comments sound exactly like voice-of-hermes's "US proxy war" bullshit, it's becoming apparent that the new bot/alt comments that aren't just copy/pastes of their old comments are controlled by this mod
Still pushing the same agenda, posted days after AOC voted to send more money to Ukraine anyway, the exact thing these pro-Putin mods are against, because she too realized it was necessary!
More of the same, with voice-of-hermes replying to himself on his various alts in the comments ...pretty sad really
Edit: Brand new post, time for a 2 year old tweet by Bernie to make it look like he's against giving aid to Ukraine, propaganda from bots already deployed
Other Notes
robotevil was permanently suspended for his previous posts here revealing LRLOP's botnet, wonder if LRLOP's bots mass-reported him? BTW his first post compiles a lot of past research into LRLOP if you're interested
willwriteofthe is another LRLOP alt that just cross-posts the same disinfo at the same time to other subreddits in the network
Running MBAOC (and other LRLOP subs) through reveddit makes it clear that EVERY comment mentioning "Russia" now is being automatically removed... comments by the mod's alts or those that keep with the mod's message are all re-instated
Mass comment purge of pro-Ukraine comments in r/DebtStrike, another LRLOP sub that's often promoted with stickied comments in the other subs
A good site detailing the propaganda Russia is employing against Ukraine outside of reddit
Thank you for reading. I hope you found this post informative and consider sharing it elsewhere on reddit
EDIT: Thank you so much for the awards, but again, I am not the OP of this post. All I did was repost this here at u/LRLOP-TA's request. Please go award them on their original post instead!
1.4k
1.4k
1.2k
1.0k
983
918
843
837
———
So We Have A Probably Russian Farm Account Problem
———
The US state primaries have started, which means that the US election season has officially unfortunately begun. r/Neoliberal is going to be targeted by malicious outside actors, the same as any other political sub. It may, due to our slightly more centrist appeal than other subs, even be targeted more.
———
Example of Our Probably Russian Farm Account Problem
———
Here’s a particularly blatant example that got on r/Neoliberal ‘s front page yesterday. We’re a relatively small sub; it doesn’t take much, only 55 upvotes.
First off, it’s a six year old story. She’s not running for office anymore and she’s not going to run now, it’s literally a six year old story. But Russian bots know that Hillary, Trump, Obama, cops, and cop are hot-button keywords guaranteed to get a comment section frothing. Those are their favorite headline words.
And check out this poster’s history, screenshot for posterity. What kind of post history is that? Are they even hiding they’re fake? Is this a test? Normally these guys at least post on SquaredCircle or video game subs or some other topic a 20-year-old Russian dude can easily handle. No effort, 0.5/10.
———
Why/How This Is OUR Problem?
———
Alas. We here of r/neoliberal — and I mean legit, regular YIMBY-ing, free-trade supporting, globalist, pro-Ukraine posters — we fell for it. We all fell in on each other in a truly spectacular display of enraged righteous fury, with multiple comments with karma in the -30s, spread across multiple threads of fighting. Over a six year old story.
The most obvious post ever designed to divide us? It worked.
To be clear, I’m not knocking on all the commenters/posters there. Those farms have years of experience at this. It is their actual job to piss you off, it is a data-driven science.
But this is what it’s like when they’re not trying, and they’re going to get more subtle. This includes them having “credible” farm accounts that aren’t as easy to see through. They especially post/comment in surely-not-at-all-bad-faith threads about issues that they know a more politically diverse subreddit like ours will 100% fight over.
I’d post more examples, but because while I’m 90% sure I’ve identified several accounts, plausible deniability is on their side.
Instead, look at the sub’s front page exactly five months ago, non-election season. I really encourage you to poke around our January and February history. Top posts for the day generally consisted of posts that neoliberals knew that fellow neoliberals would enjoy. At the risk of sounding cheesy: as a group, even taking the Great Succ Divide into account, we’ve historically been pretty respectful of the big tent — and that means we’re a bit more inclined to focus on what we know will unite us, not what we already know divides us.
This has changed especially in the last few weeks. I’m sure more people than I have noticed. This will get worse as the mid-terms approach.
———
What To Do About The Problem
———
While there are tools developed to catch malicious influencers, we are unlikely to get our hands on them and Reddit is unlikely to use them either.
When looking at a newer post, consider:
Is this actually a neoliberal story that an actual human neoliberal would post here, or is it just a particularly divisive politically-flavored story? If it’s particularly divisive, why is it relevant to the sub, and who benefits from posting it here?
Would this kind of post have been posted here in a non-election season?
Does the title include favorite words like “trump”, “hillary”, “obama”, “cops”, or “cop”? These were the most likely words to be used by Russian puppet accounts, due to divisiveness. I imagine 6 years later they’ll find new trigger words but these seem to still be working fine for them!
Is the OP engaging in good faith debate in the comment section, posting minimally and then bailing, or did they just straight up post and run?
Does the OP regularly post in subreddits that make sense for a somewhat-rounded human being, or (outside politics) are they active exclusively in sports, crypto, and/or video game subreddits? That list can include pretty much any subreddit that a 20-something year old Russian doesn’t have to think very hard about to quickly shit out a post and maybe run it by their proofreader — but we gotta start somewhere.
Is the OP’s post history consistent?
Would a center-left poster herereallylisten to VaushV?Is VaushV really a thing? I’m judging you, but OK. Could a progressive transperson really manage have net negative karma in the only trans sub they’re active in?And importantly: Do I suspect this person isn’t a legit account because I disagree with them, or because they’re actually engaging in suspicious/bad faith behaviors? Are they really a farm account, or could they just be an asshole?
———
Critical Thinking? Gross.
———
IKR? Ugh.
If anyone else has any good suggestions I will totally add them here for discussion.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
837
Continue browsing in r/neoliberal
Free trade, open borders, taco trucks on every corner. Please read the sidebar for more information.
135k
advisors to Governor Polis
3.1k
online now
Created Apr 14, 2011
Reddit Inc © 2022. All rights reserved