I get it. I think defending yourself against that is probably a lost cause, though, even if that feels bad not to.

As for being an authority, personally, I see that. I think you made a statement and people, reasonably or not, assumed you know something more than they do. You post a lot, so why wouldn’t you know a lot?

I think you’re getting attacked because this post is an accusation, first and foremost. It definitely doesn’t feel like it is positive or productive.

Google it, sea lion.

Fuck off, sea lion.

Their data is adjusted for family size. Family size has been consistently shrinking since the 1960s, which, if you adjust their graph, will lead to overall decrease in wages throughout time. It is a meaningless method of transformation to get data that supports a false narrative.

Why did you not point out that their data is transformed when I did?

Repeat same talking point.

The things you say are useless, especially since these are adjusted by household size. Do one that isn’t.

Is it actually incorrect? I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong, but it just sounds bizarre or Shakespearean if you use it when it’s not an auxiliary verb.

“I’ve no need for that.” is a perfectly cromulent sentence.

That’s not really a good answer though. Those are policies put in place long before Biden became president, but not only that, you haven’t proposed an alternative. Your current solution is “Don’t vote for Biden” but the outcome is that you either get Biden, a continuation of the status quo at worst, or you get Trump, a continuation of the status quo AT BEST. You can pretend you live in a world where you get a third party candidate, but you don’t.

Which leaves you in an unfortinate bind, since that makes you a fascist by your own definition. You are trying to push a solution that would make the situation at best the same, and at worst, much, much worse. As you said:

Any president not acting to dismantle that is fascist

I assume you would never take an action that would support a fascist. So, how can you argue that in a First-Past-The-Post voting system (and one that defaults to state legislatures if no majority is made), voting for a third party is a viable solution?

I think you can’t if you are against fascism. You can post links to antifascist movements, organizations, or steps to take, but the American election system is too fucked to argue against the two big parties unless you are ever the optimist, but I don’t think you are if you argue both parties are fascist.

Imagine posting your definition for fascism instead of nothing relevant.

Please list the descriptors that show Joe Biden is a fascist, because I’m looking at Umberto Eco’s and I see… maybe 1, if you reach a bit: “appeal to the middle class”

You probably fall under at least 4 though.

It’s a 10 day old account, they are 100% a bad faith actor, and you know this because they don’t acknowledge any of the ways to push for better treatment of Palestinian civilians. They are using them as a prop to tell people to not vote for Joe Biden (which is its own brand of fucked up privileged), even though Joe Biden is pretty famous for being bullied into better positions. Voting against fascists is, indeed, the right move, and Joe Biden might be a centrist liberal, but he isn’t a fucking fascist.

Well, that’s a non sequitur.

That seems subjective, don’t you think?

Clever because the response both answers my question and attempts not to. It presumes that you understand entendres, and thus hate people for wanting to be able to live their lives.

You didn’t respond to my issues, and since you believe in equality so much, it just seemed fair.

It’s telling that you don’t defend your own words and instead point to other words.

Problematic means it causes a problem. Problematic can be used in a variety of situations, but it always means that to anyone with a brain. Blue pill is stupid meme shit that means “Don’t talk to this person again because they probably hate black people and women.”

I disagree, not sure why you wrote we when you don’t speak for me.

Those terms have pretty clear connotations. Your words, on the other hand, seem like dogwhistles, and your lack of clarification seems to cement that.

Note: I’m a staunch proponent of equality before the law and unhindered access to opportunity for everyone

Those sound like weasel words. All people, rich or poor, are banned from sleeping under bridges and stealing food is “equality before the law.” Removal of programs that give minorities a step up is “unhindered access to opportunity.”

It’s even a step further. They also don’t want anyone to break the law against them. Who would they turn to? The police will arrest them.

Solves a lot of issues with dependents and access to baby changing stations. Gendered bathrooms are stupid.