IncognitoGuy would archive your meme because its a liberal meme. There is no such thing as free speech on this stream unless you're a right wing conspiracy theorist.

who's censoring you?

IncognitoGuy. I tried to delete my comments on Trump, but he archived my comments to harass me. He claims this is to do with transparency when the archiving does the complete opposite. He even censored my views on the "It's Okay to be White bill" because I believe it promotes white supremacy.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230113014408/imgflip.com/i/77ami8?nerp=1673574225
imgflip.com/i/77apjb
imgflip.com/i/7710m4

I can't really have a voice on imgflip to be honest, you either have to be a right wing conspiracy theorist or a centre-left liberal and I don't fit into either groups. Although my views I have expressed would be agreed by liberals because I'm anti fascism (not like Antifa) and pro transparency.

archiving comments isn't censorship.....

But in a harassing way though because I'm offended. This is nothing to do with transparency, this is to offend me so I can be a laughing stock in America because I bet there'll be people at the archive place looking at me and they'll laugh at me, especially the fascists

doubtful

Offended by what? Being a superstar in his world whose looming presence haunts him so that he can only try to exorcise it by telling you he's gonna tell everyone in class on Monday and they'll point fingers and laugh at you all week?

pffffft, I'd autograph copies for whomever wants to waste their time perusing my drivel classics.

No one can be a laughing stock in America because that's who we all are - the dunderheads who couldn't make it back home so had to come here and up and move to another state whenever possible because the only thing we feel any attachment to is this week's piece of disposable plastic.

People don't get offended by what others say about them, they get offended because they allow themselves to be.
Ever notice how much crap I'm accused of and decorative expletives hurled my way but never doth protest? Because who cares? I sure don't. That people have to say crap about others only serves to indicate how vulnerable and delicate they feel.

And IRL it's even better. Here there's too many people, too many convos, but not enough time plus a lag in what time there is. In person I will look someone in the eye and say "Yes I am, got a problem with that? Then that makes it all the better because I aim to please and I ain't got anything better to do, so sit down and enjoy the ride because I know I will." And I will keep looking them in the eye and do my darndest to prove them right till they either knock my silly ass down or walk away. Guess which option they always go for?

Oh, and yes, I do say some stuff in return, but strictly for entertainment purposes and to keep the ball rolling. People are their own worst enemies. No need to try to outdo them, just help them to undo themselves.

I get timers for nothing anyways, so even the larfs are limited. Same end result though, I only come across as even more blase and unfazed. Plus that saves me time on the ping pong bs.

But yes, usually archiving comments that are not about to be deleted because its controversial is not censorship.

"centre-left liberal"

Sure, if they don't mind getting timers for reasons that no one within the nearest four quadrants of the galaxy can fathom.

Pay attention to the more mature, civil middle aged ones, they get mystifying head scratchers often enough. They just don't blast it on memes everytime they get one about how 'the man' wants to give it to them in the ******

where's her providing husband?

Found them. Actually, found a few of them.

Counterpoint: They’re AI-generated anime cartoons.
Counterpoint 2: One has a globe for a head.
Counterpoint 3: Only two are humans confirmed. Who knows what is lurking under the plated armor of the others.
Counterpoint 4: They’re all taken.

Here's an idea. We stop undercutting native workers and tax the landlords to hell. I know, I'm a madman.

My modest proposal is *inhales*

See above

I'd consider supporting it if it was at local levels seeing that the national real income varies significantly.

K?

“All you have to do is find a husband who can support you and 3-5 children on a single income, and is willing and able to do that for the rest of your life” may be a slightly more realistic public policy idea than “just win the lottery,” but it’s in the same realm.

Public policy ought to be planned around those who *don’t* win the lottery, not those who do

Sure is a shame women and migrants inflate the workforce. Supply and demand. If you want jobs to pay more, stop massively increasing the number of workers.

There's currently millions of unfilled jobs available that no one wants Post-Plague 2020, why do you think the dunderheads are allowing them to flood the gates and giving illegals asylum as refugees? Whatever happened to scurrying into the creosote and wending their way unseen into the grey economy? They're putting them up in hotels now!

Mayor Adams of NYC just announced he wants fast-track their residency to allow them to get jobs while our own New Yorkers go homeless in the 10s of 1000s. You think an immigrant with a Green Card is off to wash dishes at a diner from 8pm till 6am? Housing too, no sleeping in a cot in the basement of the restaurant with most of the rest of the staff for $35 a night.

They'll be getting menial jobs still, but legit ones at McDs and meat plants in Nevada, not digging potatoes in Idaho or bathing in Monsanto bug spray in California strawberry fields with the kids working by their side in the lovely sun.

Wages are being deflated because workers dutifully point fingers at 'the other' rather than some overlord they've never seen raking in the millions while golfing all day. The ever-widening discrepency in pay has been going on for decades, the widest by far compared to anyplace else in the world.

Basic supply-side economics in effect, but within industry, facilitating the fattening of pockets of the higher ups while the duped dead end drones hope one day some of the excess foam atop that frosty mug will get blown their way. One day that isn't yet today, that is. Not ever will ever be.

correct me if I'm wrong, but has the decreased workforce not resulted in many companies raising starting wages?

Well now we’re really off in la-la land. How do you propose barring female participation in the workforce? What would this do to sectors like education, healthcare, childcare, businesses that rely on female secretaries? We can’t just snap our fingers and make women stop working, and even if we could, we’d see crippling labor shortages.

Migrants who are undocumented aren’t true competitors with citizens; they inhabit a shadow sector of our economy with miserable working conditions and pay, not much better than slave labor. It’s an ongoing human rights tragedy.

America’s affordability crisis can be tackled from multiple practical angles: raise the minimum wage, provide paid family leave, re-introduce the COVID-era expanded child tax credit, slash the petty restrictions that stand in the way of building affordable housing stock, take the profit motive out of healthcare and make it universal.

Do all those things, and more families will be able to afford children — abortions will decline, birthrates will increase. The top 1% will pay higher taxes and be marginally less rich, but I think they’ll live.

ooopsie, I posted before reading comments.
Yours is way better than how I put it.

However, affordable housing is increasingly not quite as accessible in centers of human population, and the trend has been towards depopulation in places whose futures have been exhausted by dwindling returns while Jr stares wistfully at the aspect of an air-conditioned cubicle job were the employees get paid more to play on the computer all day without breaking a sweat.

Universal healthcare just wouldn't be affordable here like it is in countries protected by Uncle Sam and consequently flush with excess funds to burn.

The more peole can afford to raise children, they less likely they are to have them. This is a trend witnessed throughout the world, with increased affluence siring less burdensome kids.

It’s a paradox. In affluent societies, children are expensive to raise. They require a substantial investment of the parents’ time and money until at least age 18, if not longer. It’s assumed that a good child will help care for the parent in their twilight years, but that’s a long way away. Children are *consumption.*

In societies characterized by poverty, children are often seen as useful to the household. They fetch things and do work around the farm in addition to (or rather than) going to school. Children are *production.*

America is an “affluent society.” But that wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few. Often, it’s sitting in retirees’ nest eggs. However, young Americans as a rule aren’t sitting on gobs of cash and choosing not to have children.

Instead, they’re facing an affordability crisis that has hit the young especially hard. Young people are buried under tens of thousands of dollars of student debt, and can’t even think about scraping together a down-payment for a house that now costs 3x as much as it once did only a few years ago. (Wages are rising too, but in many cases not fast enough.)

Note I’m not talking only about “inflation,” from shorter-term events like Covid-era supply chain disruptions and the Russo-Ukraine War, though those aren’t helpful either. I’m talking about long-term structural factors that have been shaping our economy for decades to the benefit of the uber-wealthy and to everyone else’s detriment.

Parenting is a joy. Most people want a child. But the thing I hear over and over again from people around my age considering having kids (or having another kid) is: “Can I afford it?”

Women’s biological clocks have a hard stop at around age 40. It’s becoming harder and harder to simply scrape by in America, let alone get one’s finances in order to face the dauntingly expensive challenge of child-rearing.

Aye, but children are expensive to raise everywhere, and the less affluent often end up short on schooling, health care, and the assorted modern toys people nowadays take for granted. We went from one tv in the living room to one in every room in the space of a generation, one house phone to a cell in every pocket, one car to his & hers SUVs because people have really fat asses or something. I dunno, I could never figure that one out. No one buys THAT much at Costcos. Usually.

Besides contributing to the house functions as well as economy, mortality rate is also another factor, as traditionally survival rates were literally 50:50. In affluent societies, increased survival rates means 'backups' are no longer necessary.

Then there's also greed. People like money, and once they can access a nice flow of it, want ever more. Having less children means less waste on the distracting buggers, more money in the account.

I disagree on student debt though, as it is a choice. If they choose schools with higher tuition and degrees with lesser returns moneywise in the long run, that's on them. *old man voice* Back in my day, kids had jobs when they went to college. Ok, at one school I went to, Hunter (CUNY) it was more the trend; Fordham U later (big mistake, ugh, what a waste) which is loaded with entitled suburbanites, not as much, and those that did work tended to be local commuters as opposed to those who dormed who worked at improving their beer pong skills.
Nowadays kids are well into their 20s without having had their first job yet. Plus we had to hear about how our folks struggled simply to acquire books or even clothing. No fancy excess accroutrements for that lot.

But we are running room, costs are rising. Even keeping a house years later can prove unaffordable. Two on my block who bought their homes in the 1970s - paid in full in cash, no less, due to being 'privately employed entrepreneurs' in the, um, grey market sector, can't keep up with the upkeep and taxes in their senior years, even with middle aged offspring still residing at home (or partially because of it, as I suspect with one dingbat that used to live down the block). So now they have to sell.

I never said we should completely bar female participation from the workforce. But if a woman has young children, her job is to take care of them. Which would of course help to de-inflate the supply of workers.

I'm not talking about illegal aliens, I'm talking about all immigrants

Expanded child tax credit would be very good, getting rid of unnecessary housing restrictions would too.

oh, and it is possible for a family to live on a single income by the way

Not everybody lives in Wyoming. Nor would want to.

Michigan, 6 kids, dad works in construction, mom stays home with the kids, they seem to be doing just fine.