If you want to work and have a life, stop living where jobs are! Simply don't make adequate money to survive! Simply die!

Being unaware of reality is also a personal issue too, bud.

There are a lot of mid sized cities with reasonable housing and decent job prospects with a reasonable commute (< 30m). I know, I live in one of them.

Which one? This used to be true where I live (Twin Cities area, Minnesota) but is no longer. Prices have really exploded pretty much everywhere over the past 10 years, my home purchased in 2013 is now worth about double. It's easy to miss if you haven't been on the market.

I haven't checked in a while. In my city there are still reasonable houses (I don't want to say for obvious reasons), but I bought mine in the early 2000s and it only recently doubled. I just looked and you can still find fixer-uppers in not great neighborhoods for under $100K, but you can live in them with electric/water and all that.

Stating "You get what you pay for" is a strange way to both blame the victims & attempt to absolve multi-billion dollar corporations for not including a standardized piece of security equipment, when you consider that every major manufacturer sells vehicles firmly in the same price bracket - up to half the price of your reported average (we love to forget about outliers, don't we) that have this equipment.

Pedantry about what security was advertised or not will not make a compelling case. What a strange thing to try to argue.

Nobody even knows what an immobilizer is or how it works. They put key in car and go. People don't even read the manuals that come with the car. Most people don't even read signs along the freeways while they're driving.

This kind of willful ignorance about cars goes so far that insurance companies willfully chose to insure these cars against theft, and claimed they had no idea that the cars didn't have immobilizers. And now they are suing the manufacturers. It's the insurance company's job to evaluate risk. All they had to do was read the fucking manual and if it didn't say something in there, ask.

> That is a failure of mental health and the direction of psychology in general where by they are teaching people that everyone, everywhere must affirm you, must support you, and everything you do is perfect.

Your ideas on needing an internal framework for emotional stability is on the spot, but this idea that "they" are teaching people whatever is in itself a partisan cop-out. The onus of failure for not providing adequate mental health tools is on parents who had no idea how to handle the sudden rise of technology & a general failure of leadership figures to step in. There isn't some big leftist boogeyman teaching people that others "must" do anything.

> do you believe someone refusing to use neo-pronouns is "bullying"

There are a lot of qualifying questions that need answered before this one could be considered. Like what constitutes bullying - your definition is different than everyone else's. Do we frame this under your perception of bullying, or mine? If something is a large part of your internally perceived identity & someone else actively denies that part of your identity, is that okay? Do you have an experiential framework with which to tackle that identity scenario in the first place, to understand in any fashion how they feel about that? Are you willing to employ empathy?

I'm trying to find a moral justification for not simply calling someone what they ask to be called, or walking away from the situation - if you're dredging up old dated phrases, whatever happened to "if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all?" If someone wants to be called Xir or whatever, my question is "how the fuck do I say that" not "why should I."

> in return anyone that refuses to use neo-pronouns should be bullied themselves

No, but they should be made aware that they're being assholes. Outside of this hypothetical vacuum scenario, we know statistically that it's more likely for the person refusing to use pronouns to engage in actual violence than someone requesting to be referred using those pronouns, so things become much muddier after the point of "you're being an asshole" - but in this scenario, that's where it should end.

It shouldn't be surprising or incomprehensible to anyone that folks on one side of this field are suddenly stepping up to the same field that the other side is. It doesn't justify it, but it should be well-understood that attacks from the left are not predicated on nothing.

> or banned from society

No. Rather I'd like to see our mental health systems improve enough that we don't have millions of people that erroneously believe that other humans don't have just as much right to exist as they do. That's why people get "banned from society" or whatever inane scenario you're trying to claim happens.

> If they don't agree with your political dogma then bullying is perfectly fine right, they deserve it...

The hilarious part of this statement, at least in this specific context, is that it goes both ways. Our monkeys are flinging shit at their monkeys, and for some reason their monkeys are throwing shit back! How dare they.

I agree that 'cancelling' people - in the view that you've provided - is wrong. That said...

> Now lets say an Employee at Walmart happens to go the Republican National Convention and wears a MAGA hat, you see a photo of this online, then proceed to find their friends, employers, family, and attempt to get them evicted from their apartment, fired from walmart, and when they get a new job at Target attempt to get them fired from that as well, attempt get their mother fired, and attempt get their roommate fired as well just for good measure. (true story form left wing cancellation BTW)

You wanna know a true story from right-wing cancellation? Being bound by chains and dragged behind a truck. Gunning down an entire building full of gay people. Being burned alive in their own home. These events, steeped in alt-right online cultures of stoking fear and hatred towards leftists. Is this not the ultimate form of cancellation, the end-of-the-line of this whole scenario? As you put it, this is a common tactic for those on the authoritarian right. This is the extermination the other person is referring to. Murdering people based on shit they heard online, without actually bothering to interact with those people or build any kind of basis of empathy, to understand the challenges they face in a world where they feel the need to lash out like you've seen.

This is not justification of leftist actions, but you should also keep in mind the cauldron that they've been stewing in for decades upon decades - and the atrocities that the group you're defending have also committed. They are not innocent of wrongdoing, but you seem to casually miss that part.

> I used to work with this very devote christian, she would pray for me everyday [...] Today some people would report her to HR, get her fired, etc...

If they asked her to stop, and she didn't stop, she's in the wrong. Yes, absolutely report her to HR. What was the point of this story?

I will also save you the time by stating I don't intend on discussing this topic with you. I believe, based on the ideas you've expressed here, that you lack the empathy necessary to engage with a very emotional & "human" topic. Have a good one.

Thank you, and I definitely agree to all points. From my own observations, I feel that the right is often wrong on many things, but the far left has gone off the rails, and most of the left is either, willing, blind, useful idiots or outright evil. There's definitely a few racist, violent right wing assholes in the world, but they don't even compare to the numbers the far left weild.

It also irks me to no end, when people refer to leftists as "liberal" when they are no such thing at this point. I can deal with liberals, and as a libertarian share most of the values. More like Progressive past the point of usefulness to society.

> From my own observations, I feel that the right is often wrong on many things, but the far left has gone off the rails

The difference, I feel, is that I know many people whose identity is "leftist" or "progressive" and I don't personally know anyone who identifies as a "rightist". The right is a centuries-old boogeyman of the left, and it encompasses everyone who disagrees with the critical-analysis class-based views of the left.

The worst term the left has is "far-right" which just means very-heretical. The worst thing you can do is let your opinions diverge from the groupthink.

The people who are doing it to hunker down for hard times are the people that would go to every grocery store for miles during the first few months of COVID and find that each store had been entirely bought out of canned goods. That was reality for many rural areas for a while when all this started.

Conversely, I have a friend that used to play Godus every day before he moved to some other game.