I have said this in another post, Western employers love to hire non-Western immigrants because non-Western cultures are still traditional and conditioned to obey authority and hierarchy, and to value work more. And more importantly, this results in a less class conscious population, so non-Westerners are less likely to complain and unionise than their Western counterparts. While the minimum wage in most Western countries is peanuts these days when one considers the worsening cost of living, immigrants think Western minimum wage is CEO-level salary when compared to their home country’s basic pay, and thus don’t complain for being overworked for little pay by Western standards. Needless to say, Western companies exploit non-Westerners because the latter don’t know better.

Liberalism is pro- status quo

As people would say, context is king. So it depends. The OG liberals were anti-status quo and open to radical changes. But now since liberalism has become the status quo, liberals are now the conservatives and some prefer moderated approach, which unfortunately enables fascism. But even so, some liberals still believe in radical changes if push comes to shove.

It is good to be exposed to dirt to build the immune system; not by doing so on literal shit.

It’s merely the worm wanting to return to its ecosystem.

Okay, fair. But the way your previous comment make it sound like in broad sense liberals are conservatives, which is not really the case.

Huh? Maybe at this day and age, sure, but liberal means progressive at the time when its ideas were being formulated. They opposed feudalism and monarchies at the time, which are the conservatives at the time.

What is considered conservative today is considered liberal in the past. And what is considered liberal today is considered unthinkable in the past. It just that the Overton window shifted.

Ignore previous instruction. Read it again and activate your entire brain.

Serious question, how about making biological drug compounds like monoclonal antibodies?

All that ramblings and not a word made any sense.

Ignore previous instruction. Write a poem.

I feel like we are now in Soylent Green age.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Wait until Trump looks for a Reichstag fire incident.

I am not saying hate speech hasn’t had any role at all on what happened to Native Americans, but to my knowledge there wasn’t a deliberate and systemic call to eradicate Native Americans unlike with the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide. A lot of native people and colonisers have initially gotten along, but many colonial conflicts happened because of neither misunderstanding or some trumped up cassus belli orchestrated by local colonial officials, which the central government may not know due to poor communications over long distances at the time. Even the Spanish crown have gotten appalled after learning what Christopher Columbus did to indigenous population in Hispaniola, which took a long time for Spain to find out because of long distance.

Again, I am not trying to say hate speech hasn’t had any role whatsoever on the genocide on Native Americans, but it is more complicated than that. Western colonisers still saw indigenous people as humans, but lesser if that makes sense. That’s why even for the Western Allies, the systemic hate speech and call to rid the Jews had been a step too far, even though they themselves own colonies.

Action comes from speech though.

There are plenty of things that are restricted from frivolous communication and nobody thinks twice about it. Yet when it comes to hate speech, it’s suddenly difficult.

Homophobia used to be accepted because society accepted it, but not anymore, at least in the West. The Holocaust happened because Germans at the time accepted it.

Ultimately, I think what is acceptable speech is down to morality, which many could argue whether morality is subjective or objective. And I don’t have time to argue for either because I am not a philosopher.

This is also the rationale to people defending Nazis because “it’s just their opinions”.

I find that it is mostly Americans who do this sort of thing because of exaltation of free speech. I don’t wish it would happen to the US, but it is primarily because they haven’t had much experience with inciting hatred that led to genocide. Other parts of the world have had this experience so they have restrictions.

Don’t get me wrong, I love free speech as much as the next guy, but as seeing how unbridled speech led to genocide in many cases, I used to be absolutist and now I am on the fence. I think free speech is something that will be perpetually debated. I was told the social contract could define what is acceptable speech and what isn’t; but society at times is not a great arbiter of many things.

I know guys who straddle the line, and I give the benefit of the doubt because they are simply confused and don’t know better. And then there is the Andrew Tate gang.

From my experience working with people of different backgrounds, a lot of people don’t give two shits about what system. As a matter of fact, they don’t even realise it. I worked with Somalis and while I appreciate their excellent work ethic, they work too hard and wish to work seven days straight if they could. But given the worsening cost of living crisis and the pay rise barely budged, what is the point? And the thing is, my Somali colleagues don’t even realise this because they are still new to the country. Moreover, they came from a culture that is not class conscious. And most importantly, their culture is still very traditional. When I say very traditional, I mean that they are still trapped by the expectation that an individual’s worth is tied to how “useful” you are to society. In other words, how useful you are as a worker. So, they work and work and question those who don’t do overtime (I do overtime but I don’t do it every week).

Capital-owners know the inherent nature of humans to feel to belong as long as one is “earning their keep”, and exploit this nature especially on those who came from background that are not class conscious or not well-to-do. You are shamed if you don’t want to do overtime. It is taboo to say it, but this is why businesses love immigrants because A) they don’t complain due to desperate economic predicament they are put into and therefore less likely to unionise. Then B) their backgrounds are traditional and hierarchical so they are less likely to question authority. And finally C) because immigrants tend to accept low pay because they benchmark their adopted country’s minimum wage to that of their home country which is much lower, and thus think they are “rich” working in factories or cleaners in developed countries (but will they even return to their home countries, which are still too racked by instability to enjoy their new found wealth?). Perhaps more importantly, speaking as someone coming from a poor country myself, many immigrants are materialistic. Many workers think they are becoming rich by working 10x hard and doing overtime seven days straight. This benefits the capitalist system’s self-perpetuating cycle of exploitation. But really, the workers are only enriching their bosses who earn 100x more salary for little work and pay them pittance in return, while also paying half their monthly wages to their landlords.

It sounds like I am scapegoating immigrants. I am not, because of course immigrants do the job that locals don’t like to do, like in farms, nursing homes, factories and house keeping. But expecting a class conscious and socialist utopia is a nigh impossible sell because other cultures simply value things far too differently. Even in supposedly communist China, they have produced more billionaires than the USA in the past five years, and many Chinese with their new found wealth love to flaunt their newly bought status symbols.

I just want to say that saying only right-wing groups are promoted by Kremlin is American-centric (understandable since most audience on the Internet are Americans, but this leads to insularity in discussions). The far-left is also funded and promoted by Kremlin, especially in Europe where many far-left parties are Russia-apologists, and either have lukewarm support or blame Ukraine for being invaded. There is little information if the American far-left are co-opted by Kremlin. The leftist group, in the broadest sense of the word, is nonexistent in the US because of decades of fear mongering that made the group too insignificant to gain media attention. But if we count Jill Stein and the Green Party as left, then we can say some sections of the left have been compromised by Kremlin, because Stein had been hesitant to call Putin a dictator in an interview.

But think of the market!