Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On August 22 2026 01:03 Jankisa wrote:GH likes to use "Epstein class" as a branding term that includes everyone from Tucker Carlson to Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer
On August 22 2026 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:their Epstein Class donors.
This is just a more bizarre pejorative for the 1%, or globalists, or anybody both rich and donors to political campaigns? The only exclusions appear to be the non-rich and rich people that the speaker likes.
"Epstein class" means people who don't go to jail even when they flagrantly break the law because they have so much influence, like Trump and Musk. Anyone using it to refer to Congresspeople or whatever in general are talking out of their ass; there's plenty of examples like Bob Menendez and Jesse Jackson Jr. who went to prison and are still serving their sentences/completed their sentences without a pardon or commutation.
On August 22 2026 01:40 LightSpectra wrote: the things most beneficial to the Epstein class.
On August 22 2026 01:03 Jankisa wrote:GH likes to use "Epstein class" as a branding term that includes everyone from Tucker Carlson to Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer
On August 22 2026 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:their Epstein Class donors.
This is just a more bizarre pejorative for the 1%, or globalists, or anybody both rich and donors to political campaigns? The only exclusions appear to be the non-rich and rich people that the speaker likes.
"Epstein class" means people who don't go to jail even when they flagrantly break the law because they have so much influence, like Trump and Musk. Anyone using it to refer to Congresspeople or whatever in general are talking out of their ass; there's plenty of examples like Bob Menendez and Jesse Jackson Jr. who went to prison and are still serving their sentences/completed their sentences without a pardon or commutation.
That's a great name for people who don't go to jail.
On August 22 2026 01:40 LightSpectra wrote: the things most beneficial to the Epstein class.
On August 22 2026 01:03 Jankisa wrote:GH likes to use "Epstein class" as a branding term that includes everyone from Tucker Carlson to Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer
On August 22 2026 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:their Epstein Class donors.
This is just a more bizarre pejorative for the 1%, or globalists, or anybody both rich and donors to political campaigns? The only exclusions appear to be the non-rich and rich people that the speaker likes.
"Epstein class" means people who don't go to jail even when they flagrantly break the law because they have so much influence, like Trump and Musk. Anyone using it to refer to Congresspeople or whatever in general are talking out of their ass; there's plenty of examples like Bob Menendez and Jesse Jackson Jr. who went to prison and are still serving their sentences/completed their sentences without a pardon or commutation.
That's a great name for people who don't go to jail.
Where did Epstein die?
Bringing up the fact that Epstein was assassinated during the Trump administration in a prison that William Barr was in charge of when the footage mysterious vanished is certainly a bold move. Remind me why the current AG Todd Blanche is still illegally impeding the release of Epstein files again?
On August 21 2026 13:39 Sermokala wrote: Theres a serious conversation about how and why young men fall down into the alt right>neo nazi pipeline to be had. Things are going to get much worse in the next economic collapse but young men these days are in a dire place. There is just so much hate and anger in them and society is not giving them any help in dealing with it. They get taught that they're the bad person and they don't understand why.
I'm convinced it's largely social media algorithms spamming Andrew Tate and similar garbage to kids when they're impressionable and their brains are still forming. I don't let my kids use any social media except youtube with a whitelist and they haven't been exposed to any misogyny or Nazism yet.
I agree. Social media is a cancer on society. It is addictive and influences people to be the worst possible version of themselves.
Is social media really that bad in itself? Would it still be so toxic without capitalism?
Fascism/Nazism aren't an individual consumerist lifestyle choice or reaction to social media or even economic conditions in themselves. It's actually a sort of cannibalistic racial capitalism trying to preserve itself during a terminal crisis. They emerge/gain power when capitalist structures face deep structural collapse. They use state power, extreme nationalism, and violence to violently reorganize society and protect the property of specific "elites".
social media wants you to be engaged with it, so it feeds you the thing it thinks you want to see thereby creating ego chambers. And that is before we get into the way our mind reacts to instant quick fire dopamine access which leads to addiction.
Capitalism doesn't make it toxic, the money being earned with it isn't the main issue. Its the instant gratification.
Whether social media or gaming, the instant gratification mechanic is designed as an incentive to keep you engaged to see more ads (buy subscriptions, cosmetics, gochas, etc) for profit. If social media was a utility (like for people to share updates/scheduling of friends and family activities) it wouldn't need or really benefit from that mechanic.
It'd be like a water company trying to trick you into using more water without a profit incentive.
So you propose a system where there is no competition, you get payed your salary by the company/state regardless of how good or bad your product is. Money just exists and is given to you?
Because so long as performance matters, so long as healthy competition exists, which is imo rather crucial for progress in any field, then 'engagement' will matter for social media.
yes capitalism pushes things to undesirable extremes and leads Meta to attempt to build an addictive social media platform, but the underlying basis of 'give the customer what they want' isn't tied to capitalism itself. And instagram filling your eyeballs with cat pics is desirable by the consumer.
He proposes nothing, stands behind nothing, and does nothing. That’s the schtick.
On August 21 2026 13:39 Sermokala wrote: Theres a serious conversation about how and why young men fall down into the alt right>neo nazi pipeline to be had. Things are going to get much worse in the next economic collapse but young men these days are in a dire place. There is just so much hate and anger in them and society is not giving them any help in dealing with it. They get taught that they're the bad person and they don't understand why.
I'm convinced it's largely social media algorithms spamming Andrew Tate and similar garbage to kids when they're impressionable and their brains are still forming. I don't let my kids use any social media except youtube with a whitelist and they haven't been exposed to any misogyny or Nazism yet.
I agree. Social media is a cancer on society. It is addictive and influences people to be the worst possible version of themselves.
Is social media really that bad in itself? Would it still be so toxic without capitalism?
Fascism/Nazism aren't an individual consumerist lifestyle choice or reaction to social media or even economic conditions in themselves. It's actually a sort of cannibalistic racial capitalism trying to preserve itself during a terminal crisis. They emerge/gain power when capitalist structures face deep structural collapse. They use state power, extreme nationalism, and violence to violently reorganize society and protect the property of specific "elites".
social media wants you to be engaged with it, so it feeds you the thing it thinks you want to see thereby creating ego chambers. And that is before we get into the way our mind reacts to instant quick fire dopamine access which leads to addiction.
Capitalism doesn't make it toxic, the money being earned with it isn't the main issue. Its the instant gratification.
It is even worse than that. Because, as it turns out, the one emotion that keeps you engaged more than any other is anger. (I think this is scientifically proven, but i am too lazy to look up a source, and mostly just half-remember it)
So social media doesn't only feed you stuff that you want to see, it feeds you stuff that makes you angry. Because that is the one thing that keeps you on that platform most reliably. Which i think works very well to explain why society is the way it currently is. Social media is very good at making people angry at other people, and it rewards those actors who are best at making other people angry.
I think that this is unavoidable if a system actually optimizes for engagement.
On August 22 2026 01:40 LightSpectra wrote: the things most beneficial to the Epstein class.
On August 22 2026 01:03 Jankisa wrote:GH likes to use "Epstein class" as a branding term that includes everyone from Tucker Carlson to Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer
On August 22 2026 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:their Epstein Class donors.
This is just a more bizarre pejorative for the 1%, or globalists, or anybody both rich and donors to political campaigns? The only exclusions appear to be the non-rich and rich people that the speaker likes.
"Epstein class" means people who don't go to jail even when they flagrantly break the law because they have so much influence, like Trump and Musk. Anyone using it to refer to Congresspeople or whatever in general are talking out of their ass; there's plenty of examples like Bob Menendez and Jesse Jackson Jr. who went to prison and are still serving their sentences/completed their sentences without a pardon or commutation.
They have to have a criminal prosecution not resulting in jail time to be a member of the Epstein class? This is still sounding like a vague pejorative of the rich and politically connected. I point at a rich person, make an allegation that they broke the law and ought to be prosecuted but haven’t been, and they’re now a member of the Epstein class.
Epstein went to jail, several congresspeople were pardoned and did not. Care to refine a bit?
It is indeed a vague pejorative of the rich and politically connected. And people will continue to use it so long as Epstein clients like Trump and Musk don't go to prison despite flagrantly breaking laws.
On August 22 2026 01:40 LightSpectra wrote: the things most beneficial to the Epstein class.
On August 22 2026 01:03 Jankisa wrote:GH likes to use "Epstein class" as a branding term that includes everyone from Tucker Carlson to Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer
On August 22 2026 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:their Epstein Class donors.
This is just a more bizarre pejorative for the 1%, or globalists, or anybody both rich and donors to political campaigns? The only exclusions appear to be the non-rich and rich people that the speaker likes.
"Epstein class" means people who don't go to jail even when they flagrantly break the law because they have so much influence, like Trump and Musk. Anyone using it to refer to Congresspeople or whatever in general are talking out of their ass; there's plenty of examples like Bob Menendez and Jesse Jackson Jr. who went to prison and are still serving their sentences/completed their sentences without a pardon or commutation.
They have to have a criminal prosecution not resulting in jail time to be a member of the Epstein class? This is still sounding like a vague pejorative of the rich and politically connected. I point at a rich person, make an allegation that they broke the law and ought to be prosecuted but haven’t been, and they’re now a member of the Epstein class.
Epstein went to jail, several congresspeople were pardoned and did not. Care to refine a bit?
On August 22 2026 01:40 LightSpectra wrote: the things most beneficial to the Epstein class.
On August 22 2026 01:03 Jankisa wrote:GH likes to use "Epstein class" as a branding term that includes everyone from Tucker Carlson to Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer
On August 22 2026 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:their Epstein Class donors.
This is just a more bizarre pejorative for the 1%, or globalists, or anybody both rich and donors to political campaigns? The only exclusions appear to be the non-rich and rich people that the speaker likes.
"Epstein class" means people who don't go to jail even when they flagrantly break the law because they have so much influence, like Trump and Musk. Anyone using it to refer to Congresspeople or whatever in general are talking out of their ass; there's plenty of examples like Bob Menendez and Jesse Jackson Jr. who went to prison and are still serving their sentences/completed their sentences without a pardon or commutation.
They have to have a criminal prosecution not resulting in jail time to be a member of the Epstein class? This is still sounding like a vague pejorative of the rich and politically connected. I point at a rich person, make an allegation that they broke the law and ought to be prosecuted but haven’t been, and they’re now a member of the Epstein class.
Epstein went to jail, several congresspeople were pardoned and did not. Care to refine a bit?
What’s your definition?
I don’t use the term. It sounds like a bad pejorative that came out of a focus group somewhere. The only commonalities I’ve observed are rich and disliked by the term-user.
On August 21 2026 13:39 Sermokala wrote: Theres a serious conversation about how and why young men fall down into the alt right>neo nazi pipeline to be had. Things are going to get much worse in the next economic collapse but young men these days are in a dire place. There is just so much hate and anger in them and society is not giving them any help in dealing with it. They get taught that they're the bad person and they don't understand why.
I'm convinced it's largely social media algorithms spamming Andrew Tate and similar garbage to kids when they're impressionable and their brains are still forming. I don't let my kids use any social media except youtube with a whitelist and they haven't been exposed to any misogyny or Nazism yet.
I agree. Social media is a cancer on society. It is addictive and influences people to be the worst possible version of themselves.
Is social media really that bad in itself? Would it still be so toxic without capitalism?
Fascism/Nazism aren't an individual consumerist lifestyle choice or reaction to social media or even economic conditions in themselves. It's actually a sort of cannibalistic racial capitalism trying to preserve itself during a terminal crisis. They emerge/gain power when capitalist structures face deep structural collapse. They use state power, extreme nationalism, and violence to violently reorganize society and protect the property of specific "elites".
social media wants you to be engaged with it, so it feeds you the thing it thinks you want to see thereby creating ego chambers. And that is before we get into the way our mind reacts to instant quick fire dopamine access which leads to addiction.
Capitalism doesn't make it toxic, the money being earned with it isn't the main issue. Its the instant gratification.
Whether social media or gaming, the instant gratification mechanic is designed as an incentive to keep you engaged to see more ads (buy subscriptions, cosmetics, gochas, etc) for profit. If social media was a utility (like for people to share updates/scheduling of friends and family activities) it wouldn't need or really benefit from that mechanic.
It'd be like a water company trying to trick you into using more water without a profit incentive.
So you propose a system where there is no competition, you get payed your salary by the company/state regardless of how good or bad your product is. Money just exists and is given to you?
Because so long as performance matters, so long as healthy competition exists, which is imo rather crucial for progress in any field, then 'engagement' will matter for social media.
yes capitalism pushes things to undesirable extremes and leads Meta to attempt to build an addictive social media platform, but
the underlying basis of 'give the customer what they want' isn't tied to capitalism itself. + Show Spoiler +
And instagram filling your eyeballs with cat pics is desirable by the consumer.
That sounds like a MAGA teenager providing a caricature of communism
The short answer is no, that's not what I'm proposing.
We all know we're not the customers of social media getting what we want right (EDIT: colloquially known as, "If you aren't paying for the product, you are the product")? We're the product, being held captive by a multi-decade scientifically engineered prison without bars, being sold to the Epstein class to be manipulated (using decades/billions of dollars worth of research) into buying/doing whatever serves their interests?
On August 22 2026 01:40 LightSpectra wrote: the things most beneficial to the Epstein class.
On August 22 2026 01:03 Jankisa wrote:GH likes to use "Epstein class" as a branding term that includes everyone from Tucker Carlson to Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer
On August 22 2026 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:their Epstein Class donors.
This is just a more bizarre pejorative for the 1%, or globalists, or anybody both rich and donors to political campaigns? The only exclusions appear to be the non-rich and rich people that the speaker likes.
"Epstein class" means people who don't go to jail even when they flagrantly break the law because they have so much influence, like Trump and Musk. Anyone using it to refer to Congresspeople or whatever in general are talking out of their ass; there's plenty of examples like Bob Menendez and Jesse Jackson Jr. who went to prison and are still serving their sentences/completed their sentences without a pardon or commutation.
They have to have a criminal prosecution not resulting in jail time to be a member of the Epstein class? This is still sounding like a vague pejorative of the rich and politically connected. I point at a rich person, make an allegation that they broke the law and ought to be prosecuted but haven’t been, and they’re now a member of the Epstein class.
Epstein went to jail, several congresspeople were pardoned and did not. Care to refine a bit?
What’s your definition?
I don’t use the term. It sounds like a bad pejorative that came out of a focus group somewhere. The only commonalities I’ve observed are rich and disliked by the term-user.
On August 21 2026 13:39 Sermokala wrote: Theres a serious conversation about how and why young men fall down into the alt right>neo nazi pipeline to be had. Things are going to get much worse in the next economic collapse but young men these days are in a dire place. There is just so much hate and anger in them and society is not giving them any help in dealing with it. They get taught that they're the bad person and they don't understand why.
I'm convinced it's largely social media algorithms spamming Andrew Tate and similar garbage to kids when they're impressionable and their brains are still forming. I don't let my kids use any social media except youtube with a whitelist and they haven't been exposed to any misogyny or Nazism yet.
I agree. Social media is a cancer on society. It is addictive and influences people to be the worst possible version of themselves.
Is social media really that bad in itself? Would it still be so toxic without capitalism?
Fascism/Nazism aren't an individual consumerist lifestyle choice or reaction to social media or even economic conditions in themselves. It's actually a sort of cannibalistic racial capitalism trying to preserve itself during a terminal crisis. They emerge/gain power when capitalist structures face deep structural collapse. They use state power, extreme nationalism, and violence to violently reorganize society and protect the property of specific "elites".
social media wants you to be engaged with it, so it feeds you the thing it thinks you want to see thereby creating ego chambers. And that is before we get into the way our mind reacts to instant quick fire dopamine access which leads to addiction.
Capitalism doesn't make it toxic, the money being earned with it isn't the main issue. Its the instant gratification.
Whether social media or gaming, the instant gratification mechanic is designed as an incentive to keep you engaged to see more ads (buy subscriptions, cosmetics, gochas, etc) for profit. If social media was a utility (like for people to share updates/scheduling of friends and family activities) it wouldn't need or really benefit from that mechanic.
It'd be like a water company trying to trick you into using more water without a profit incentive.
So you propose a system where there is no competition, you get payed your salary by the company/state regardless of how good or bad your product is. Money just exists and is given to you?
Because so long as performance matters, so long as healthy competition exists, which is imo rather crucial for progress in any field, then 'engagement' will matter for social media.
yes capitalism pushes things to undesirable extremes and leads Meta to attempt to build an addictive social media platform, but
the underlying basis of 'give the customer what they want' isn't tied to capitalism itself. + Show Spoiler +
And instagram filling your eyeballs with cat pics is desirable by the consumer.
That sounds like a MAGA teenager providing a caricature of communism
The short answer is no, that's not what I'm proposing.
We all know we're not the customers of social media getting what we want right? We're the product, being held captive by a multi-decade scientifically engineered prison without bars, being sold to the Epstein class to be manipulated (using decades/billions of dollars worth of research) into buying/doing whatever serves their interests?
We don’t all know that, it’s made up and a direct violation of rule two. Which you do over and over and over.
On August 21 2026 13:39 Sermokala wrote: Theres a serious conversation about how and why young men fall down into the alt right>neo nazi pipeline to be had. Things are going to get much worse in the next economic collapse but young men these days are in a dire place. There is just so much hate and anger in them and society is not giving them any help in dealing with it. They get taught that they're the bad person and they don't understand why.
I'm convinced it's largely social media algorithms spamming Andrew Tate and similar garbage to kids when they're impressionable and their brains are still forming. I don't let my kids use any social media except youtube with a whitelist and they haven't been exposed to any misogyny or Nazism yet.
I agree. Social media is a cancer on society. It is addictive and influences people to be the worst possible version of themselves.
Is social media really that bad in itself? Would it still be so toxic without capitalism?
Fascism/Nazism aren't an individual consumerist lifestyle choice or reaction to social media or even economic conditions in themselves. It's actually a sort of cannibalistic racial capitalism trying to preserve itself during a terminal crisis. They emerge/gain power when capitalist structures face deep structural collapse. They use state power, extreme nationalism, and violence to violently reorganize society and protect the property of specific "elites".
social media wants you to be engaged with it, so it feeds you the thing it thinks you want to see thereby creating ego chambers. And that is before we get into the way our mind reacts to instant quick fire dopamine access which leads to addiction.
Capitalism doesn't make it toxic, the money being earned with it isn't the main issue. Its the instant gratification.
Whether social media or gaming, the instant gratification mechanic is designed as an incentive to keep you engaged to see more ads (buy subscriptions, cosmetics, gochas, etc) for profit. If social media was a utility (like for people to share updates/scheduling of friends and family activities) it wouldn't need or really benefit from that mechanic.
It'd be like a water company trying to trick you into using more water without a profit incentive.
So you propose a system where there is no competition, you get payed your salary by the company/state regardless of how good or bad your product is. Money just exists and is given to you?
Because so long as performance matters, so long as healthy competition exists, which is imo rather crucial for progress in any field, then 'engagement' will matter for social media.
yes capitalism pushes things to undesirable extremes and leads Meta to attempt to build an addictive social media platform, but
the underlying basis of 'give the customer what they want' isn't tied to capitalism itself. + Show Spoiler +
And instagram filling your eyeballs with cat pics is desirable by the consumer.
That sounds like a MAGA teenager providing a caricature of communism
The short answer is no, that's not what I'm proposing.
We all know we're not the customers of social media getting what we want right? We're the product, being held captive by a multi-decade scientifically engineered prison without bars, being sold to the Epstein class to be manipulated (using decades/billions of dollars worth of research) into buying/doing whatever serves their interests?
We don’t all know that, it’s made up and a direct violation of rule two. Which you do over and over and over.
Tbf in the case of social media, it may not be explicitly you the product, but it's definitely data about you. Either to sell you stuff, or convince you of stuff. Manipulate seems like a fair summary.
And if you don't know that yet, then I'm wondering what rock you've been living under. Meta has had a bunch of scandals, with Cambridge Analytics obviously the big one, but plenty of others where they've clearly abused the data they collected, and had to justify themselves to Congress (and gotten mega fines from the EU).
So I guess if you don't take it as self-evident, I wonder what you think social media's business model is, and how it isn't summarised by what GH said?
On August 22 2026 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote: That said, politicians are generally, now more than ever (at least in our lives), just lackeys for their Epstein Class donors. Trump has done more than people realize to undermine what little leverage politicians had to bring "pork" home to secure reelections.
that's why the best individual strat is to never be loyal to any one single nation. seeing as we're in the US Politics thread.. the best approach is that of former baseball star Russell Martin. He is a "world citizen". He can live in Canada, France or the USA. Multiple options is the optimal path. Making yourself eligible to work and live in multiple countries is a big PITA. However, it is the best approach.
The governor of Minnesota clears 60K a year after expenses if he is honest in his affairs. @1:10 "I was serving as governor for $60,000 a year". At this point the system is built to create corruption. No wonder Minnesota is corrupt.
React to this reality accordingly.
The salary for the governor of Minnesota is 200k. That is the reality that an honest person would react to.
Minnesota is not anymore corrupt than the next state and has the third highest Human development index score in the country. If we are a corrupt state, then being corrupt is an achievement despite the conditions. We weren't given oil or gold, we got an unelected cabal of technocrats and let them run wild with taxing authority.
On August 21 2026 13:39 Sermokala wrote: Theres a serious conversation about how and why young men fall down into the alt right>neo nazi pipeline to be had. Things are going to get much worse in the next economic collapse but young men these days are in a dire place. There is just so much hate and anger in them and society is not giving them any help in dealing with it. They get taught that they're the bad person and they don't understand why.
I'm convinced it's largely social media algorithms spamming Andrew Tate and similar garbage to kids when they're impressionable and their brains are still forming. I don't let my kids use any social media except youtube with a whitelist and they haven't been exposed to any misogyny or Nazism yet.
I agree. Social media is a cancer on society. It is addictive and influences people to be the worst possible version of themselves.
Is social media really that bad in itself? Would it still be so toxic without capitalism?
Fascism/Nazism aren't an individual consumerist lifestyle choice or reaction to social media or even economic conditions in themselves. It's actually a sort of cannibalistic racial capitalism trying to preserve itself during a terminal crisis. They emerge/gain power when capitalist structures face deep structural collapse. They use state power, extreme nationalism, and violence to violently reorganize society and protect the property of specific "elites".
social media wants you to be engaged with it, so it feeds you the thing it thinks you want to see thereby creating ego chambers. And that is before we get into the way our mind reacts to instant quick fire dopamine access which leads to addiction.
Capitalism doesn't make it toxic, the money being earned with it isn't the main issue. Its the instant gratification.
Whether social media or gaming, the instant gratification mechanic is designed as an incentive to keep you engaged to see more ads (buy subscriptions, cosmetics, gochas, etc) for profit. If social media was a utility (like for people to share updates/scheduling of friends and family activities) it wouldn't need or really benefit from that mechanic.
It'd be like a water company trying to trick you into using more water without a profit incentive.
So you propose a system where there is no competition, you get payed your salary by the company/state regardless of how good or bad your product is. Money just exists and is given to you?
Because so long as performance matters, so long as healthy competition exists, which is imo rather crucial for progress in any field, then 'engagement' will matter for social media.
yes capitalism pushes things to undesirable extremes and leads Meta to attempt to build an addictive social media platform, but
the underlying basis of 'give the customer what they want' isn't tied to capitalism itself. + Show Spoiler +
And instagram filling your eyeballs with cat pics is desirable by the consumer.
That sounds like a MAGA teenager providing a caricature of communism
The short answer is no, that's not what I'm proposing.
We all know we're not the customers of social media getting what we want right? We're the product, being held captive by a multi-decade scientifically engineered prison without bars, being sold to the Epstein class to be manipulated (using decades/billions of dollars worth of research) into buying/doing whatever serves their interests?
We don’t all know that, it’s made up and a direct violation of rule two. Which you do over and over and over.
Tbf in the case of social media, it may not be explicitly you the product, but it's definitely data about you. Either to sell you stuff, or convince you of stuff. Manipulate seems like a fair summary.
And if you don't know that yet, then I'm wondering what rock you've been living under. Meta has had a bunch of scandals, with Cambridge Analytics obviously the big one, but plenty of others where they've clearly abused the data they collected, and had to justify themselves to Congress (and gotten mega fines from the EU).
So I guess if you don't take it as self-evident, I wonder what you think social media's business model is, and how it isn't summarised by what GH said?
Engineered prison without bars is pretty fucking over the top given that you can simply choose not use it. I know this because I do. No need to sane wash.
On August 22 2026 01:40 LightSpectra wrote: the things most beneficial to the Epstein class.
On August 22 2026 01:03 Jankisa wrote:GH likes to use "Epstein class" as a branding term that includes everyone from Tucker Carlson to Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer
On August 22 2026 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:their Epstein Class donors.
This is just a more bizarre pejorative for the 1%, or globalists, or anybody both rich and donors to political campaigns? The only exclusions appear to be the non-rich and rich people that the speaker likes.
"Epstein class" means people who don't go to jail even when they flagrantly break the law because they have so much influence, like Trump and Musk. Anyone using it to refer to Congresspeople or whatever in general are talking out of their ass; there's plenty of examples like Bob Menendez and Jesse Jackson Jr. who went to prison and are still serving their sentences/completed their sentences without a pardon or commutation.
That's a great name for people who don't go to jail.
On August 22 2026 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote: That said, politicians are generally, now more than ever (at least in our lives), just lackeys for their Epstein Class donors. Trump has done more than people realize to undermine what little leverage politicians had to bring "pork" home to secure reelections.
that's why the best individual strat is to never be loyal to any one single nation. seeing as we're in the US Politics thread.. the best approach is that of former baseball star Russell Martin. He is a "world citizen". He can live in Canada, France or the USA. Multiple options is the optimal path. Making yourself eligible to work and live in multiple countries is a big PITA. However, it is the best approach.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYmgniTWiU The governor of Minnesota clears 60K a year after expenses if he is honest in his affairs. @1:10 "I was serving as governor for $60,000 a year". At this point the system is built to create corruption. No wonder Minnesota is corrupt.
React to this reality accordingly.
The salary for the governor of Minnesota is 200k. That is the reality that an honest person would react to.
Minnesota is not anymore corrupt than the next state and has the third highest Human development index score in the country. If we are a corrupt state, then being corrupt is an achievement despite the conditions. We weren't given oil or gold, we got an unelected cabal of technocrats and let them run wild with taxing authority.
The salary is typically $100K-$200K per year, though a few are slightly outside that range based on the state/territory. The governors of Connecticut and Illinois are exceptions (they don't take a salary at all).
On August 21 2026 21:13 LightSpectra wrote: [quote]
I'm convinced it's largely social media algorithms spamming Andrew Tate and similar garbage to kids when they're impressionable and their brains are still forming. I don't let my kids use any social media except youtube with a whitelist and they haven't been exposed to any misogyny or Nazism yet.
I agree. Social media is a cancer on society. It is addictive and influences people to be the worst possible version of themselves.
Is social media really that bad in itself? Would it still be so toxic without capitalism?
Fascism/Nazism aren't an individual consumerist lifestyle choice or reaction to social media or even economic conditions in themselves. It's actually a sort of cannibalistic racial capitalism trying to preserve itself during a terminal crisis. They emerge/gain power when capitalist structures face deep structural collapse. They use state power, extreme nationalism, and violence to violently reorganize society and protect the property of specific "elites".
social media wants you to be engaged with it, so it feeds you the thing it thinks you want to see thereby creating ego chambers. And that is before we get into the way our mind reacts to instant quick fire dopamine access which leads to addiction.
Capitalism doesn't make it toxic, the money being earned with it isn't the main issue. Its the instant gratification.
Whether social media or gaming, the instant gratification mechanic is designed as an incentive to keep you engaged to see more ads (buy subscriptions, cosmetics, gochas, etc) for profit. If social media was a utility (like for people to share updates/scheduling of friends and family activities) it wouldn't need or really benefit from that mechanic.
It'd be like a water company trying to trick you into using more water without a profit incentive.
So you propose a system where there is no competition, you get payed your salary by the company/state regardless of how good or bad your product is. Money just exists and is given to you?
Because so long as performance matters, so long as healthy competition exists, which is imo rather crucial for progress in any field, then 'engagement' will matter for social media.
yes capitalism pushes things to undesirable extremes and leads Meta to attempt to build an addictive social media platform, but
the underlying basis of 'give the customer what they want' isn't tied to capitalism itself. + Show Spoiler +
And instagram filling your eyeballs with cat pics is desirable by the consumer.
That sounds like a MAGA teenager providing a caricature of communism
The short answer is no, that's not what I'm proposing.
We all know we're not the customers of social media getting what we want right? We're the product, being held captive by a multi-decade scientifically engineered prison without bars, being sold to the Epstein class to be manipulated (using decades/billions of dollars worth of research) into buying/doing whatever serves their interests?
We don’t all know that, it’s made up and a direct violation of rule two. Which you do over and over and over.
Tbf in the case of social media, it may not be explicitly you the product, but it's definitely data about you. Either to sell you stuff, or convince you of stuff. Manipulate seems like a fair summary.
And if you don't know that yet, then I'm wondering what rock you've been living under. Meta has had a bunch of scandals, with Cambridge Analytics obviously the big one, but plenty of others where they've clearly abused the data they collected, and had to justify themselves to Congress (and gotten mega fines from the EU).
So I guess if you don't take it as self-evident, I wonder what you think social media's business model is, and how it isn't summarised by what GH said?
Engineered prison without bars is pretty fucking over the top given that you can simply choose not use it. I know this because I do. No need to sane wash.
An engineered prison without bars that they have to use for organizing purposes, no less.
I agree. Social media is a cancer on society. It is addictive and influences people to be the worst possible version of themselves.
Is social media really that bad in itself? Would it still be so toxic without capitalism?
Fascism/Nazism aren't an individual consumerist lifestyle choice or reaction to social media or even economic conditions in themselves. It's actually a sort of cannibalistic racial capitalism trying to preserve itself during a terminal crisis. They emerge/gain power when capitalist structures face deep structural collapse. They use state power, extreme nationalism, and violence to violently reorganize society and protect the property of specific "elites".
social media wants you to be engaged with it, so it feeds you the thing it thinks you want to see thereby creating ego chambers. And that is before we get into the way our mind reacts to instant quick fire dopamine access which leads to addiction.
Capitalism doesn't make it toxic, the money being earned with it isn't the main issue. Its the instant gratification.
Whether social media or gaming, the instant gratification mechanic is designed as an incentive to keep you engaged to see more ads (buy subscriptions, cosmetics, gochas, etc) for profit. If social media was a utility (like for people to share updates/scheduling of friends and family activities) it wouldn't need or really benefit from that mechanic.
It'd be like a water company trying to trick you into using more water without a profit incentive.
So you propose a system where there is no competition, you get payed your salary by the company/state regardless of how good or bad your product is. Money just exists and is given to you?
Because so long as performance matters, so long as healthy competition exists, which is imo rather crucial for progress in any field, then 'engagement' will matter for social media.
yes capitalism pushes things to undesirable extremes and leads Meta to attempt to build an addictive social media platform, but
the underlying basis of 'give the customer what they want' isn't tied to capitalism itself. + Show Spoiler +
And instagram filling your eyeballs with cat pics is desirable by the consumer.
That sounds like a MAGA teenager providing a caricature of communism
The short answer is no, that's not what I'm proposing.
We all know we're not the customers of social media getting what we want right? We're the product, being held captive by a multi-decade scientifically engineered prison without bars, being sold to the Epstein class to be manipulated (using decades/billions of dollars worth of research) into buying/doing whatever serves their interests?
We don’t all know that, it’s made up and a direct violation of rule two. Which you do over and over and over.
Tbf in the case of social media, it may not be explicitly you the product, but it's definitely data about you. Either to sell you stuff, or convince you of stuff. Manipulate seems like a fair summary.
And if you don't know that yet, then I'm wondering what rock you've been living under. Meta has had a bunch of scandals, with Cambridge Analytics obviously the big one, but plenty of others where they've clearly abused the data they collected, and had to justify themselves to Congress (and gotten mega fines from the EU).
So I guess if you don't take it as self-evident, I wonder what you think social media's business model is, and how it isn't summarised by what GH said?
Engineered prison without bars is pretty fucking over the top given that you can simply choose not use it. I know this because I do. No need to sane wash.
An engineered prison without bars that they have to use for organizing purposes, no less.
Luckily he is immune, unlike mere mortals. Definitely not down the rabbit hole that feeds him garbage. No chance this is why him and the far right agree so much.
EPT
