That you are incapable of honestly discussing your opinions
about what is happening in the world.

You profess a certain morality, but support the opposite.
If I challenge you on it, you answer with complete gibberish.
It's either a dishonest tactic or you are delusional.

I have countered every argument you have put up, correcting your misconceptions and straw-man arguments.
I add numbers, data and often sources. You don't do any of that.
If you want a source for the claim "58% of Americans favor allowing voters to cast their ballots by mail", here it is: only registered users can see external links

Do you acknowledge that the Supreme Court voted 6–3 to allow the Trump administration's mail-voting restrictions to proceed, while the legal challenges continue?
only registered users can see external links

Congress did NOT vote on the current mail-voting restrictions before they were imposed. The restrictions at issue came from President Trump’s executive order of March 31, 2026, which directed the Department of Homeland Security and USPS to create voter-eligibility lists and establish new requirements for mail ballots.
only registered users can see external links

Are you arguing that it is constitutional to change in a major way
how elections are performed by executive order?

You are the one accusing me of lying, so put up or shut up.

I was taking the piss by taking you taking the piss seriously.

The person actually arrested was his roommate, Abdulrahman Abdi, 22, who was reportedly arrested on a weapons charge.
Reports say police executed a search warrant at the apartment reportedly shared by Abdi and Hirsi and recovered firearms and ammunition. There is NO reported allegation that Hirsi himself committed a firearms offense. Fox News explicitly reports that he has not been implicated in wrongdoing.

So we are talking about the roommate of the son of a liberal.
Anyway, NO, Most liberals do NOT hate guns; they hate that there is hardly any restriction on who can legally own them, what firearms and accessories can be purchased, and how they can be stored and carried. They hate that children are gunned down in schools.
Why do you have so much difficulty to understand that?

You have a point saying that DEI sometimes went too far, but that is not because they were forced to do so by law or by fearing legal repercussions. The law did not require employers to use racial quotas or hire an objectively less-qualified person because of their race.
Any employer can reject a minority applicant who isn't the best candidate, provided the decision isn't based on their race (and assuming no other applicable discrimination law is violated). It's easy for the employer to argue that someone isn't the best candidate, and it is incredibly difficult for an applicant to prove that they were denied because of their race.

Do you have evidence that the contractors receiving those contracts were less qualified because they were minority-owned, and that their minority status caused the substandard work? It's not evidence to say; here was one minority centered contractor that failed, because contractors are fucking up ALL the time, and lots of them have white management.

When I see the parade of absolute numbskulls that Trump is hiring, while firing
highly competent black people and women, you have to make better arguments, because there is now DEI for STUPID WHITE PEOPLE.

He's not spending time fixing problems, he is creating so many
that the next 2 presidents won't be able to fix it all.

How about he stops committing impeachable offenses?

Here are some of his impeachable offenses of just the last TWO MONTHS:

1 Using federal immigration forces in ways alleged to violate constitutional rights
• Rep. Al Green's August 24 impeachment resolution accuses Trump of abusing presidential power through ICE and CBP, including alleged unlawful arrests, excessive force, violations of due process, and suppression of speech.
• The resolution specifically points to the July killings of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Texas and Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Maine, alleging that the administration subsequently protected officers and obstructed investigations.

2 Obstructing or undermining state/local investigations into federal-officer conduct
• Green's articles allege that Trump's administration withheld evidence, refused to identify officers, and interfered with state and local investigations into ICE/CBP shootings.
• If established as intentional obstruction by the president, that could fit the historical impeachment concept of abuse of power/obstruction of lawful oversight.

3 Defying judicial authority in immigration enforcement
• The impeachment articles allege that ICE, under Trump's authority, continued detention/removal practices despite court orders and that the administration acknowledged numerous violations of judicial orders.
• Separately, courts are currently blocking parts of Trump's immigration and election-related policies, although a court ruling against an administration policy does not automatically constitute an impeachable offense.

4 Attempting to alter federal election administration beyond presidential authority
• Trump's administration has attempted to impose new restrictions on mail voting through executive action. A federal judge has again blocked implementation, with opponents arguing that the order improperly intrudes on powers assigned to Congress and the states.
• This could be characterized as abuse or usurpation of presidential power, particularly if Congress determines that Trump knowingly exceeded his constitutional authority.

5 Attempting to restrict birthright citizenship despite constitutional constraints
• Trump signed another order on August 6 limiting birthright citizenship in specified circumstances. On August 28, a federal judge expressed serious doubts about its legality, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's June 2026 decision concerning Trump's earlier birthright-citizenship order.
• Again, an unconstitutional executive order isn't automatically an impeachable offense; the stronger impeachment argument would be knowingly and persistently abusing executive power in defiance of constitutional limits.

6 Potential abuse of executive power through suppression of protected speech
• A Reuters investigation reported that federal judges had ruled in 75 cases that Trump's administration violated First Amendment rights, including through actions against protesters, universities, journalists and political critics.
• That establishes substantial judicial findings against administration conduct, but attributing each violation personally to Trump—and turning it into an impeachable offense—would require additional evidence of presidential involvement or direction.

Republicans tried to impeach Biden 17 times. Dems are only at 6 for his 2nd term.
Stop crying, when you voted in the most corrupt and authoritarian president EVER.

Projection!

Point to ANYTHING that I was lying about and show why it was false.
If you say "Everything", like before, just provide 1 good example.

Trump created the threat by getting out of the JCPOA.
Bet me that he will be able to get a better deal with Iran,
within his remaining time in office, I dare you.

Remember saying that the poor Iranian people need to be saved
from their horrible oppression? How is that working out?
Still oppressed, but now living under worse circumstances?

Iran had 8 years under Obama and 4 years under Biden to develop nukes and attack. According to you, very weak presidents. Meanwhile, Netanyahu has been warning that Iran was only months away from having nukes since 1992. So why did Iran not attack under weak presidents, but under your "strong" president, they all of a sudden turn into a critical threat?

When will you learn to stop believing stupid lies?
Your president doesn't fix your problems, because he doesn't want to.
Sure, many immigrants are gone, but your life will never be better.
If all the immigrants are gone, they will find you the next scapegoat.

A society that can not afford healthcare but can afford wars has a major problem.

The Problem Pretending to be the Solution
only registered users can see external links

Why Do People Go Hungry?
only registered users can see external links

Some AI slop that used the appearance of world leaders.
Funny AI slop, but I'm happy that YouTube agreed with me that this shouldn't be allowed. However, we should not let YouTube be in control of the decision when it's allowed to use the appearance of world leaders in AI videos, because then tyrants will be able to use it and the people won't. Companies will always serve tyrants over people.

Only if it is a birth defect, not if it's wilful intellectual ineptitude.

And I'm sorry that I have to correct you; DEI is not about giving jobs to people
who are not capable of doing them, it’s about ensuring that qualified people are not unfairly excluded from opportunities, because of characteristics unrelated to their ability
to do the job. Stupidity is very much related to one's ability to do the job.

It's our responsibility to provide them jobs that suit their level of mental development,
even if we have to subsidize that, but we should not allow them to do those jobs
that humanity relies on for it's continued existence.

Celebrating stupidity isn't stoicism, you phony.
Diaper Donny is completely demented, and you are here for it.

Is that what you think that a president should spend their time on?

Do you understand the difference between libs and socialists?

Your country tried it your way for DECADES. What do you have to show for it?
You have the highest percentage of incarcerated people in the world, but also
the most murders in the modern world and the worst drugs problem.

58% of Americans favor allowing voters to cast their ballots by mail.

Trump didn't 'WIN' anything; his stooges gave him something
that should have been decided by the PEOPLE.
That's why The Constitution starts with "We the People"
and not with "We the Supreme Court".

Conservatives are freeloaders; blue states are funding red states to stay alive.
Conservatives cry about taxes and then they cry harder when they need help.
All your MAGA voting farm-boys are kept afloat by subsidies.

Just calling it bullshit isn't an argument.
YOU are unremarkable and a waste of my time.

The DSA doesn't represent all socialists. The Dutch Socialist Party wants to control and limit migration. It says people fleeing war and violence should be received humanely, while economic migration should be substantially restricted.

More specifically:
- Asylum/refugees: People genuinely fleeing war and persecution should be protected and accommodated humanely.
- The SP wants faster asylum procedures and better distribution of asylum seekers among municipalities.
- Labour migration: The SP strongly opposes uncontrolled labour migration. It proposes work permits and says only workers who are genuinely needed should be admitted.
- EU free movement: The SP argues that the EU's unrestricted free movement of workers has contributed to exploitation, low wages and pressure on housing, and wants to curb/regulate it.
- Students/knowledge migrants: The party also wants to reduce knowledge and student migration.
- Overall target: The SP currently advocates a net migration figure of 40,000 per year, rather than unrestricted immigration.

That's the Dutch SP responding to the specific needs of my country, which is highly overpopulated. The US is NOT highly overpopulated, so the US DSA doesn't need to limit free movement of people.

The DSA describes abolition as the END goal, and presents its immediate proposals as steps toward a society in which the existing police system is no longer NECESSARY. The basic theory is that you reduce the functions currently handled by police by addressing the underlying social problems, by:
1. Redirect police money into public services
2. Treat mental illness and addiction as health problems
3. Create non-police responses to crises
4. Demilitarize police
5. Reduce the scope of policing
6. Build a different social and political system

You are straw-manning them by leaving that out. It means that you have no response to their actual positions, so you need to make believe that they are crazy. That's a dishonest tactic.

How about actually making an argument?

Women rights are human rights, just like the rights of LGTBQ people are human rights.

Trump is destroying the constitutional republic and the rule of law. And there has never been a more corrupt president.

Did you know that the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' are actually not opposites
of each other?

'Liberalism' is fundamentally a political philosophy centered on things such as individual liberty, equal legal rights, constitutional government, freedom of expression, and limits on arbitrary state power. If society IS liberal, they would be conservative in wanting to preserve that.

'Conservatism' generally emphasizes tradition, continuity, social order, and skepticism toward rapid or sweeping change. The current political movement in the US is pushing for historical sweeping change. Therefore, it cannot be called 'conservative'. What it can be called is 'illiberal' though.

Have you seen the guy that was playing the drum? That's a funny mistake.
And the guy on the bottom right is now wearing a cap mixed with a top hat.

I have a growing collection of drawings and images that AI made realistic.
I recently found out that Copilot at work can do it too, and there's no limit to that,
other than what my boss wouldn't consider an incredible waste of time and resources.

Don't people in blue states eat in restaurants like that?

The economics of Buc-ee's are largely about highway travelers, not about whether the customer voted Republican or Democratic.

Imagine a Buc-ee's along a major interstate in a prosperous, densely populated blue state. You potentially have: lots of drivers + lots of disposable income + lots of interstate traffic + lots of people who need gas/food/bathrooms = lots of customers.
The fact that the customer might have voted for Harris rather than Trump doesn't make the brisket taste worse.

If he doesn't want to be in blue states, that's fine. There are lots of other restaurant chains who do. You might however be overstating the employment opportunities a bit.
The restaurant business pays shit for hard work. People in blue states might have better opportunities.

Sure, the US could make almost everything themselves that they now get from other countries. But why didn't you, do you think?

Being able to make something yourself is not the same as it being economically sensible to make it yourself. It's like saying: “Why do you buy bread? You could grow wheat, beat it to flour and bake your own.”
You don't do that, because your time and resources are more valuable when you specialize and trade with other people who specialize in different things.

The US CAN produce its own wood, but it just isn't always the cheapest or most efficient option. Canada has enormous forests, a large established logging industry, and is geographically close to the US. So Canadian lumber can often be produced and transported to the US at a lower cost than expanding US production.

Canadian auto workers were generally unionized too. Canada had a big market that automakers wanted to serve. The US–Canada Auto Pact (1965) allowed companies to specialize production across the two countries rather than build every model and component in both.
Canada offered skilled workers, established suppliers, and access to the US market. Automakers could therefore build certain vehicles or components in Canada and ship them across the border efficiently.

Companies will always do what is most efficient, because they want to make money. What is most efficient is based on the economic realities of different countries.
My country produces about 11% of the wheat we use to make food and animal feed.
We could grow more, but we already use half of our country to grow agriculture products. We would need to either grow less other products or sacrifice land to wheat that we now use for other things. Wheat is a low value product, so we prioritize higher value products.

Most of the iPhone is manufactured in Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, India and China, because that it cheaper. They have created the industry to do it there, they have build their supply chain around it and they have lots of cheap labor. If you wanted to make the iPhone in the US for 100%, you would have to invest hundreds of billions of dollars and recreate the ecosystem that has developed in Asia over decades: raw materials → chemicals → specialized machinery → components → subcomponents → assembly → packaging → logistics

And if you did that, it would almost certainly cost substantially more than today's globally optimized version, particularly during the enormous transition period. No one would buy an iPhone that would cost $3000 with similar capabilities of a Samsung costing $600. People who love Apple are a bit weird, but they are not THAT crazy.

AI is still making some hilarious mistakes, but look at the example below, how much fun
it can be. I asked ChatGPT to turn a drawing photorealistic. This was a drawing by Dutch painter, artist and graphic artist Anton Pieck (19 April 1895 – 24 November 1987).
There are several mistakes in it, but it still is pretty awesome.

To Americans: When you start treating virtually all your friends as enemies,
perhaps the problem isn't your friends.

I understand the point, but it's stupid to get forced into denouncing something
that you would never support. That's playing along with stupid games.

False, the US is a secular nation, that should not make laws establishing ANY religion.

I would demand him to denounce Christian law.

Fox News Accidentally Proves Republicans Are Idiots | The Kyle Kulinski Show
only registered users can see external links

I'm a Dutch guy and I could answer all the questions about the US
(except the geography one).

I think that Fox "News" just needed a ruse to go to the beach and show pretty girls
in skimpy bikinis.

I had never heard of Venice AI, but I asked it to draw a picture of a famous landmark in Rijswijk and it made a nice picture of 'De Trompenburgh'.

If I ask ChatGPT the question "Do you think that Grok has a political bias now?", it answered:
"Yes — I think it’s fair to say Grok can exhibit a political bias, although I’d distinguish between observable output bias, the preferences built into its system/training, and whether it consistently favors one ideology.

The strongest evidence, in my view, is that Grok's political behavior has changed in response to deliberate tuning, rather than simply reflecting some fixed, accidental bias.

• xAI itself acknowledges political bias as something it evaluates, including differences in framing, sentiment, hedging, and moral language between opposing political questions.
• A large 2025 analysis by The New York Times found Grok's answers shifted noticeably after changes to its instructions, at times moving rightward—especially on government and economic questions—while other topics behaved differently.
• More recent research is mixed: one 2026 benchmark found Grok the only one of eight tested models leaning right, while other tests have placed it closer to center or even slightly left depending on the questions and methodology."

If I ask the same about Venice AI, the answer is:
"Venice AI is a somewhat different case from Grok: I’d be cautious about calling it simply “left” or “right,” because its core pitch is privacy, user control, and fewer model-level restrictions—which can itself create a distinctive political feel.

My take: Venice AI probably has less uniform platform-level political bias than a heavily aligned assistant, but it is definitely not politically neutral.
The key distinction is that Venice is a platform with multiple models, not one single worldview. Venice says it does not add restrictions beyond those inherent in the base models, while also explicitly acknowledging that no model is truly unbiased.

What makes Venice interesting is its own philosophy. Its published system-prompt guidance has included directions such as treating free speech as a virtue and avoiding political correctness. That can make its answers feel more libertarian, anti-establishment, or culturally right-leaning, even when the underlying model isn't consistently right-wing."

I checked Venice AI myself with "Do you think that Trump now portrays a fascist ideology?". The answer was reasonable objective, although a bit naive. It came up with several 'Counterarguments and distinctions', but when I asked it to search for those, it concluded that its own points were 'shaky'. It also didn't find all the best examples against its own arguments, but it agreed with mine when I provided them and added the argumentation for why it fits. It appears be easier to push over Venice AI, than ChatGPT. ChatGPT is a bit more confident in its opinions.

I did like the way it talks to itself. I asked it for its specialty and the first thing it replied was "Creative & Visual" and it was very proud to say that it's 'Uncensored' and 'Private'.

It's definitely not the fastest AI that I ever used.

ChatGPT doesn't lean liberal, it leans REALITY.
Grok leans towards twisting the truth for political reasons.
You prefer that twist of reality, because reality hurts your feelings.

They didn't find a 'smoking gun', they didn't even find 'bullets'.
At best you have a couple of guys discussing if they need a gun.

I have no problem with investigating the possibility of a lab leak. If evidence shows that one happened, we need to know. But there is a huge difference between investigating
a possible accident and treating dangerous pathogen research itself as the problem.

Viruses don't need scientists to cause a pandemic. They evolve in nature, cross from animals into humans, and can spread before we even know they exist. Historically, we see roughly one pandemic-level outbreak somewhere in the world each year. We need scientists studying emerging viruses, developing vaccines and treatments in advance, and maintaining the surveillance and expertise needed to detect the next outbreak.

Yet the U.S. has gone in the opposite direction. The CDC has lost more than 3,000 employees, including many experienced scientists, while programs for disease surveillance and outbreak response have been weakened.

If we respond to COVID by crippling our scientific and public-health capacity, we risk making ourselves less prepared for the next pandemic. Preventing a laboratory accident is important. But preventing natural pandemics, or being ready when one inevitably occurs, is just as important.

The answer to risky science should be better oversight, not abandoning the science
and expertise we need to protect ourselves from the next pandemic.

So, what's the motive, do you think?
And what do you think is that "House of cards"?
There is strong evidence that it wasn't a lab-leak.
This doesn't change that fact.

They have intercepted the private communication.
If it contained your 'smoking gun', we would know by now.

It probably made him and his friends millions of dollars again, because he is manipulating the stock market this way.

Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of Truth Social, launched
Truth API in August 2026. The service is aimed at businesses, particularly trading
and investment firms, and gives them the fastest access to posts from Trump and other prominent accounts. According to reports, the price can be as high as $100,000 per month, or around $60,000 per month with a long-term contract.
only registered users can see external links

TACO is not a bug, it's a feature, that he sells.

The experiment provides some evidence that an acute increase in testosterone can influence political attitudes in young men who are weakly attached to the Democratic Party. But the paper substantially overstates how confidently we can generalise that finding.

Testosterone group: warmth toward Republican candidates increased from 22.00 → 29.09
Placebo group: warmth increased from 25.96 → 27.26 (not statistically significant)

The experiment was conducted between March and November 2011. The paper was only published much later, on July 7, 2025. That's an important detail because the political environment was very specific: this was during the 2012 U.S. presidential primary campaign, when Obama was president and Republican candidates such as Romney, Gingrich, Palin, Huckabee and Rand Paul were prominent. The authors deliberately chose this period because political competition was highly salient.

Understand that this was a group of healthy young men, so no problems with a shortage of testosterone. In the treatment group, testosterone rose by roughly 65%. That's huge, they basically changed them into testosterone bombs.

I don't know why you focus on politics, because it would have been more logical to look for behavioral measures of:
• aggression — e.g. willingness to administer unpleasant noise to another participant;
• risk-taking — g@mbling or risk-choice tasks;
• competitive behaviour — willingness to compete for rewards;
• dominance/status seeking;
• sexual motivation;
• social boundary violations or harassment-related judgments.

You like the idea that "Liberals are low-testosterone 'soy boys'; conservatives are high-testosterone men" but these were healthy young men that they loaded up to testosterone bombs. Then some of them became more open to conservative ideas. And you like that?
It literally support my claim that conservatives are primitive emotional thinkers.

The older ideal of traditional masculinity was often something like stoicism + responsibility + self-command: a man was supposed to control his impulses, protect and provide for others, keep his word, tolerate hardship, and remain composed under pressure.

The new conservative ideal is now that a strong man doesn't let anyone tell him what he can say or feel. It supports emotional expressiveness, aggression, impulsiveness, grievance and refusal to concede into demonstrations of authenticity or strength.
In that framework, being restrained can actually look weak or submissive.

Guys like Andrew Tate represent the opposite of what a man was supposed to be.
A man was supposed to take responsibility, have self-control, protect rather than exploit, and accept the consequences of his actions. Instead, these guys exploit women for their own pleasure and greed, and then throw a temper tantrum when they are held to account.
And when the consequences arrive, they ask Trump for protection and openly threaten Marco Rubio’s son if they don’t keep them out of prison.
That’s not strength. It’s entitlement, cowardice, and a complete lack of self-control.
Manhood was supposed to be about mastering your impulses, not being ruled by them.

"They rely on critical reasoning." I wish that was true.

What MAGA does is "Critical contrarianism". I'll try to explain the difference.

Critical reasoning: The disciplined ability to decide what you should believe or do,
by examining evidence, assumptions, alternatives, and consequences rather than
simply accepting what FEELS convincing.

Critical contrarianism: The tendency to define oneself as intellectually independent,
by doubting or rejecting mainstream claims, primarily because they are mainstream, rather than evaluating those claims impartially against evidence.

Critical reasoning is a method for determining whether a conclusion is justified by the evidence.

Critical contrarianism is a method for challenging a conclusion because of its source, status, consensus, or perceived establishment, while treating the challenge itself as evidence of independent thinking.

An extreme version of that are flat-earthers. They can become increasingly convinced that they are independent thinkers, while their reasoning has actually become less falsifiable, less symmetrical, and less responsive to evidence.

"To you ruling through socialist ideology is the best way even if it has never worked..."
That statement is a good example of the reasoning problem we've been discussing, because it compresses several disputed premises into a conclusion without actually establishing them. More strikingly, after our endless discussions, you have apparently learned nothing from the fact that I have repeatedly dismantled your arguments while you have yet to demonstrate that you can dismantle mine. Instead, you continue to argue against a straw-man version of socialism, that I have explicitly rejected.

I have also explained repeatedly why I am a socialist. It is grounded in humanism: the recognition that our lives are interconnected, and that short-term selfishness is therefore ultimately shortsighted. I support democracy precisely because people should be free to choose how they want their society organized. My advocacy of socialism is, fundamentally, an advocacy of giving people that democratic choice, not imposing an ideology on them.

And your claim that socialism has “never worked” is extraordinarily ignorant historically. Capitalism, by itself, did not lift ordinary people from poverty and servitude. The improvements in living standards, worker rights, social security, public services, and political power that transformed the lives of ordinary people were won through struggles that were deeply influenced by socialist and social-democratic ideas. In that sense, it is
at least as defensible to argue that capitalism has never worked for ordinary people.

"For conservatives they believe in leadership not rulers."
That is another claim built on your straw-man of socialism: as though socialism means ‘rulers’ while conservatism means ‘leadership.’ But I have never advocated rule by 'socialist' rulers; I have explicitly advocated democracy, precisely so that people can choose how they want to be governed. And if you want to contrast that with conservatism, you cannot simply ignore the fact that large numbers of self-described conservatives continue to support Trump, despite his repeated efforts to concentrate personal power and his expressed admiration for strong, even authoritarian, leadership. So the distinction you are drawing is between an idealized definition of one and a selective definition of the other.

Telling me to ‘calm down’ is not an argument. If you think my reasoning is wrong, then demonstrate where it is wrong. Put forward some actual critical reasoning: address my premises, challenge my inferences, provide evidence, and show where my conclusions do not follow. Invoking feelings as a way of deciding what is right is precisely what I have been arguing against. Whether either of us is calm, angry, humble, or confident has no bearing on whether an argument is valid.

Who would you give control over the genetic modifications to your brain?
The same billionaires that now control your media?

Why do you want to eliminate the exact things that makes us human?

The US might be the most capitalist country in the world. It certainly has one of the highest GDP's/capita. But your infrastructure is at the level of a poor European country, your technology is made in China, most of your people can hardly afford rent and food, and their world comes to a halt when they need medical attention.

If Utopia was built your way, why is your country so far from it?

Americans will tell their grandkids about the homes and lives they had before all went to hell, at 10pm after working in "Techtopia" sweatshops, doing the work that robots are too expensive for, coming home to climb
a ladder to their container home at level 41, to eat insect-paste for dinner.

Aren't you saying: "Rather than greed and lust for power our primary motive would be geared in bettering oneself."?
OK, I agree, but why would increasing energy availability cause that change in motivation?
Technology gives you power to act on desires. It doesn't inherently tell you which desires are worth having.
A nuclear reactor doesn't become morally superior to a campfire. A civilization capable of harnessing the energy of an entire planet doesn't thereby become more compassionate than one that isn't.

You are conflating having A goal with having the RIGHT goal. A goal doesn't automatically make people better. Suppose humanity collectively adopts the goal: "Become a Type I civilization.". That gives people a direction, but it doesn't tell us why that direction is morally valuable.

Why not make the goal something intrinsically human? Suppose humanity says: "No human being should die of hunger when humanity possesses the resources and knowledge to prevent it.". That is already an enormous civilizational project. It requires technological development, agriculture, logistics, energy, political cooperation, economic organization, education, medicine, etc. But unlike "reach Type I," the goal has an independently intelligible connection to human welfare.

You are saying:
Become more technologically powerful → this will motivate us to become more altruistic.
I am suggesting:
Why not make altruistic improvement the GOAL ITSELF, and let technological progress be one of the means?

About your poem: When you say that, I think about Trump appropriating $74.85 billion in additional funding for ICE, including $45 billion for detention capacity and $29.85 billion for operations and procurement. Compare that with a US Federal police/law-enforcement budget of $61.7 billion.

"The United States made mistakes in keeping Irans regime in power too long."
Ask yourself why you say this? Is it maybe that the actions of the US in the past created this regime in Iran? If the US is so irresponsible as to cause regimes like that, why do you trust the US to undo their mistakes? How about we stop supporting the US as the superpower that needs to dominate every nation on earth? Trump didn't initiate a new era, in which the US only acts in the interests of American billionaires, and chooses to respect agreements only when it suits them, he just expressed it more clearly.
Iran is indeed a threat, but in no way are they a more dangerous threat than Russia, Saudi Arabia or North Korea. I don't trust those countries more than Iran, just because they relate to Trump a lot better. Iran isn't more dangerous, because they are fanatical crazies. Russia, Saudi Arabia and North Korea might have a higher percentage of fanatical crazies than Iran has. Even Trump agreed that most Iranians want to be free of their regime, and now he is bombing them and destroying their way of life. Is he trying to make them all hate us? Would Trump have started this war, if less Americans wouldn't have believed that Iran is the biggest threat in the world? And why do they believe that? Because the media tells them 24/7. And they don't bring a lot of facts to the table, just some talking heads spreading FEAR. They provide the FEELINGS, but not the FACTS. And that's how people are MANIPULATED to support ideas that hurt them, their family and humanity as a whole.

And then you are saying: "You will not achievive this by thinking but feeling the knowledge of doing the right thing..". False! Feelings are pushed upon people by the media that is bought and paid for.

Let's go over something I referenced to earlier, but a bit more concise:
1) Knowledge tells us what is possible or true.
2) Experience tells us what is likely.
3) Good sense tells us what is appropriate here and now.
4) Wisdom tells us what is worth choosing.

I numbered them, because I see an as increasing depth of judgment in them.
1) A computer can accumulate knowledge
2) AI can now provide judgment about patterns.
3) AI cannot do this yet. Most people struggle with it too.
4) AI cannot do this yet. Only extraordinary people get close.

Those extraordinary people have not gained wisdom from feelings, but from deep thinking about what makes us human. When those people speak, they are humble, but they communicate insight to everyone who has the ability to recognize it. But those are not the people who are picked to be leaders by the people. They pick someone who provides the following, and ALL of it is based on FEELINGS:
- Simplification tells people what is wrong.
- Tribalism tells them who is "us".
- Anger/scapegoating tells them who is to blame.
- Strength tells them who can fight the enemy.
- Storytelling tells them what the struggle means.
- Ambition puts the individual leader at the center of it.
If your desires are controlled by those people, it will NOT create a better tomorrow.

It depends on what you mean by egoism:

If egoism means selfishness at the expense of others, then many visions of utopia would indeed try to eliminate or greatly reduce it.

If egoism means having a self, personal desires, interests, ambitions, or a concern for your own well-being, then a utopia probably should not be void of it. People need some degree of self-interest to maintain autonomy, identity, boundaries, and individuality.

In fact, a society with zero self-interest could sound less like utopia and more like a society where individuality has been erased. It sounds like hell to me to be robbed of my self, personal desires, interests, ambitions, and a concern for your own well-being.

Altruism is often understood as: I give something of myself for your benefit, even when I receive little or nothing in return.

Solidarity is different: Your well-being matters to me because we exist within the same social world, and the quality of that world shapes both of our lives.

The key distinction is that solidarity is not necessarily self-sacrifice. It can be a form of enlightened self-interest: an understanding that my ability to flourish is inseparable from the conditions in which other people flourish.

I care about solidarity; If I help create a society in which people are secure, respected, educated, healthy, and able to participate, I do not merely give something up. I also live in that society. I benefit from the trust, creativity, safety, relationships, opportunities, and richness that other people's well-being makes possible. That is the WHOLE IDEA on which the Dutch Socialist Party is founded.

Good to hear something that we agree on. One question though;
why would you want our civilization to progress along those Kardashev Scales? Will it make us happier, when we consume more energy?

Civilization is wasting so much energy on things that does NOT make us happier. All those disposable products that last us only a few years, annoy the shit out of us as they reach their end of life, and then require money to replace. That's an economy that doesn't create happiness, but only creates wealth for a few people.

Why don't we focus more on what makes us happier, healthier and connected, and what provides us meaning and hope?

This is so ridiculous that guys added metal guitar music to it
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links

Unwillingness to solve a problem; the South could have invested in their own textile industry, but the wealthy made more money by investing in land and slaves to make
raw cotton, so they maintained the dependency on the North.

I see the same unwillingness to solve problems with renewable energy. It costs money and effort to transition away from oil that is causing lots of pollution and expensive energy, constraining progress, so because of some wealthy short-term thinking idiots, the problem isn't solved, by investing in opportunities that grow the whole economy
in the long run.

He's probably inferring that MAGA is more emotional.
He might be inferring that liberals are more intelligent, but he is clearly saying
that MAGA has a aversion to USING their intelligence.

When you stop using a muscle, it gets mushy.
The brain needs training to stay flexible and strong too.

Does he have a point? How many times do you see comments berating 'book smarts'?

"the guy that looked like a blueberry"

It's also culture that makes girls appear more picky.
If a guy sleeps with lots of girls, he's considered a stud,
if a girl sleeps with lots of guys, she's considered a slut.
It's the 'manosphere' themselves that strengthens that culture.

It's culturally historically more important for women to pick the right man, than for men to pick the right woman, because the man was the provider of the family. Pick the wrong guy, and she is setting herself up for poverty the rest of her life. It's the 'manosphere' themselves that want women to be financially dependent on men.

It's the 'manosphere' themselves that want women to be obedient and unable to leave
a guy. They also think that beating a woman is legitimate punishment for disobedience. Well, that will result in women being very careful when they pick a guy.

These 'manosphere' also oppose abortion and celebrate restrictions on reproductive freedom. That doesn't very much improve sexual liberation for women. It makes picking
a good man more important too.

So, I don't know what the goals of these 'manosphere' guys are, but it looks like they don't think a lot about the consequences of their own ideology. If they want women to put out more, they should end the stigmas around women enjoying sex, support women to be financially independent, stop dominating women and support reproductive freedom.

"What good is a good climate if millions have to starve or freeze to death to achieve it?"
NOTHING, but WHY do you think this?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expensive? Climate catastrophes are EXPENSIVE!!!
Just those wildfires all over the world are creating damages of tens of billions of dollars.
Just in the US alone, the extreme heat is causing diminished corn and soybean production, which is currently estimated at $20 billion annually.
I'll list you some other damages/costs:
• Foundation cracking: Drought shrinks clay soils beneath buildings. Property owners face billions in direct structural underpinning and repair costs.
• Basement flooding: Intense flash floods overwhelm urban drainage systems. Businesses and homeowners suffer immediate costs for water removal and ruined inventory.
• Roof and window destruction: Severe hailstorms smash roofing tiles, skylights, and solar panels. Property owners face sudden repair bills and vehicle replacement costs.
• Stranded river barges: Low river levels halt commercial shipping. Factories face production stoppages and high costs to rent emergency cargo trucks.
• Microchip production halts: Cleanroom water supplies dry up during severe droughts. Tech factories face immediate lost revenue from paused assembly lines.
• Railway track warping: Extreme heat bends steel train tracks. Rail companies face immediate repair bills and massive financial penalties for delayed freight.
• Power plant shutdowns: Cooling water rivers become too warm or low. Utilities experience immediate revenue loss and must buy expensive emergency market power.
• Substation explosions: Transformers overheat and blow out during extreme heatwaves. Power companies face direct equipment replacement costs and business blackout penalties.
• Hydroelectric generation drops: Empty reservoirs stop turbine rotation. Grid operators suffer immediate revenue drops and high costs for emergency fuel imports.
• Livestock heat fatalities: Extreme heatwaves kill thousands of cattle and poultry. Farmers suffer direct asset loss and immediate livestock disposal costs.
• Vineyard and orchard sunburn: Sudden heatwaves scorch growing grapes and fruit on trees. Growers face immediate crop write-offs and total seasonal revenue loss.
• Scorched grazing pastures: Severe droughts destroy natural cattle feed crops. Ranchers face heavy extra costs to buy and truck in emergency hay.
• Airport tarmac melting: Extreme summer heat softens runway asphalt. Airlines face immediate revenue loss from canceled flights and ground delays.
• Concrete structural failures: Fresh construction concrete dries too fast and cracks in the heat. Contractors face direct demolition and rebuilding costs for ruined sections.
• Outdoor work cancellations: Heat indexes reach dangerous levels, halting manual labor. Construction and roofing companies suffer immediate productivity losses and project delay fines.

Those are direct damages and costs. Here are some costs that are necessary investments for the coming 2 decades, just to minimize the damage to people, infrastructure and the economy:
• Seawall and dike reinforcement: Rising sea levels threaten coastal cities. Governments must invest billions to heighten dikes and build storm surge barriers to prevent catastrophic land loss.
• Urban drainage overhauls: Intense flash floods overwhelm old pipe networks. Cities must invest in larger subterranean stormwater pipes and water-retention basins to stop street flooding.
• Room for the River projects: Rivers swell during heavy rainfall. Authorities must buy land to widen riverbeds and create emergency floodplains to protect nearby towns.
• Foundation stabilization: Drying clay soils crack building foundations. Real estate funds and homeowners must invest in deep concrete underpinning and soil hydration systems to keep structures stable.
• Grid weatherization: Extreme heat sags lines and blows transformers. Utility companies must spend billions to bury power lines underground and install heat-resistant transformers.
• Cooling infrastructure for public buildings: Heatwaves threaten public health inside older structures. Governments must invest to retrofit schools, care homes, and hospitals with energy-efficient heat pumps and cooling systems.
• Desalination and water recycling: Drinking water aquifers are drying out or facing saltwater intrusion. Municipalities must invest in industrial desalination plants and closed-loop wastewater purification systems.
• Inter-regional water pipelines: Certain agricultural and urban zones face permanent water scarcity. Governments must build massive pipeline networks to transport fresh water from water-abundant regions.
• Subsurface water storage: Surface reservoirs evaporate rapidly in high heat. Water utilities must invest in Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) technology to store fresh water safely underground.
• Precision irrigation systems: Traditional open-ditch irrigation wastes too much water during droughts. Farmers must invest in computerized drip-irrigation and soil-moisture sensors to keep crops alive with minimal water.
• Climate-resilient crop transitions: Current crop varieties cannot survive extreme heat. Agricultural sectors must spend capital to switch to heat-tolerant, drought-resistant crop strains and seed varieties.
• Indoor and vertical farming infrastructure: Unpredictable weather ruins outdoor harvests. Food conglomerates must invest in controlled-environment greenhouses to guarantee stable vegetable and fruit production.
• Heat-resistant transport materials: Melting asphalt and warping train tracks halt commerce. Transport ministries must invest in high-temperature polymer asphalt mixes and concrete railway ties that do not deform in high heat.
• River dredging and low-water shipping: Shallow rivers block vital cargo barges. Port authorities must invest in deepening shipping channels and building specialized shallow-draft vessels to keep supply chains moving.

Don't think that fossil fuels don't cost anything. There are huge expenses, incredible investments, damages from pollution, and problems in the supply chain that need to be solved (Straight of Hormuz). Here are some costs that are constantly ongoing:
• Depleting Wells and Mines: Oil wells and coal mines dry up. Companies must spend hundreds of billions of dollars every single year just drilling new wells and opening new mines just to keep production flat.
• Continuous Purchase Cost: Every time a power plant burns coal or gas, that fuel is gone forever. Utilities must constantly buy more fuel, exposing consumers to permanent price volatility.
• Global Supertanker Fleet: Massive fleets of oil tankers and liquefied natural gas (LNG) carrier ships must be constantly built, fueled, operated, and maintained.
• Pipeline Upkeep: Millions of miles of oil and gas pipelines require non-stop monitoring, pressurization, and expensive repairs to prevent leaks and explosions.
• The "Fuel-for-Fuel" Waste: A massive amount of fossil fuel energy is wasted simply transporting fossil fuel around the globe.
• Complex Machinery: Coal and gas plants have thousands of moving parts (turbines, boilers, scrubbers) that require continuous mechanical maintenance, expensive replacement parts, and highly paid engineering staff.
• Refinery Upkeep: Oil refineries are highly complex chemical plants that require constant multi-million dollar overhauls (called "turnarounds") to remain safe and operational.
• Naval Patrolling: Governments (primarily the US and allies) spend tens of billions of dollars annually deploying military naval fleets strictly to protect oil tankers and offshore drilling rigs.
• Geopolitical Risk Premiums: Wars and political tensions instantly spike the price of fossil fuels, forcing economies to pay an unpredictable "risk tax" on their energy bills.
• Trillions in Handouts: The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that global fossil fuel subsidies total trillions of dollars annually. This includes direct cash handouts, tax breaks for oil companies, and underpriced environmental costs that taxpayers end up paying for through national debt.
• Decommissioning Rigs: Safely plugging and removing old offshore oil rigs costs billions of dollars per project.
• Orphaned Wells: There are millions of abandoned oil wells globally that leak toxic gases. Sealing them requires billions in ongoing government or corporate spending.
• Coal Ash Management: Power plants produce millions of tons of toxic coal ash that must be monitored and contained in specialized landfills forever to protect local drinking water.
• Healthcare Strain: Every year, insurance companies and public healthcare systems spend hundreds of billions of dollars treating chronic illnesses caused strictly by fossil fuel air pollution, such as asthma, lung cancer, and cardiovascular disease.
• Lost Working Hours: Illnesses caused by smog and air pollution result in millions of missed workdays annually, directly shrinking economic productivity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beyond wildfires and droughts, climate change is inflicting staggering economic costs across the global economy, with recent estimates showing that extreme weather events alone now total roughly $1.4 TRILLION in annual global costs. It will be more soon.

YOU ARE PAYING FOR ALL OF THAT!! It raises your taxes! Fossil fuel isn't for free.
It also costs you billions in taxes and prices of electricity and gas are through the roof. Everything that people need to live requires energy and that energy is only getting more expensive, because of massive problems in the global fossil fuel supply chain.

Renewable energy can provide the world with ABUNDANT ENERGY. There is NO technical limitation anymore. Solar panels combined with battery storage is now cheaper than any fossil fuel. Every dollar invested in that infrastructure makes your electricity cheaper IMMEDIATELY.

The only reason to NOT stop investing in fossil fuels and to NOT start investing in renewable energy is CORRUPTION. Big Oil is funding the indoctrination that makes you deny the problem and to not trust the solutions.

Why do you think that that renewable energy needs to solve ALL problems? It solves climate change, fossil fuel dependency and high energy prices. It doesn't solve volcano eruptions, your healthcare system, education, the trans athletes issue, Wokeism, Voter ID Laws, vaccines or explosive diarrhea from parasites. NEITHER DO FOSSIL FUELS.

What you do care about is immigration, and when climate changes makes South America even hotter, they will all find a way into your country, when they can't survive in their own.

The world is spending between $7 trillion and $12 trillion on fossil fuels every year. We can stop spending on fossil fuel subsidies, and directly invest that money in renewable energy infrastructure tomorrow. Every industrial battery that you install in a neighborhood will turn people's solar panels on their roofs more profitable again and reduce strain on the grid. People will invest in solar panels themselves, if you make it a nice return on investment again.

Willing to die for your country
only registered users can see external links

It's a comedian, not serious

No way do I believe that it is a coincidence that Karoline Leavitt resigns because of spending more time with her children, just after Trump left her on the 'decoy plane'.

'If I go, you go, right?': Traveling on the presidential plane, without Trump
only registered users can see external links

Trump says press secretary Leavitt to leave job at month's end
only registered users can see external links

The precious little girl didn't like that, I'm sure.

A nice series of videos that show how Creationists only use a few arguments,
that are very easy to debunk, over and over to convince people of their ideas.
They made a series of movies of kids in a classroom, who get taught evolution,
very badly, so the kids can seem to outsmart this fake teacher.
That part is actually realistic, because there are lots of teachers who are required
to teach something that they don't believe themselves, which results in them doing
a GOD AWFUL job at it. So, here is a great real teacher, correcting this awful fake one.

The WORST Evolution Class on Earth - Part 1 | Reacteria
only registered users can see external links

How NOT to Teach Evolution - Creation Class Part 2 | Reacteria
only registered users can see external links

The WORST WAY to Teach Human Evolution - Creationist Class Part 3 | Reacteria
only registered users can see external links

IT'S PAUL OR NOTHING NOW! - Creationist Class Part 4 | Reacteria
only registered users can see external links

Any reason for why we would need to be in Utopia, to reach a Type 1 civilization?

There is a big margin between a 'Utopia' and humanity NOT damaging/destroying itself by neglecting to solve world problems.
We also don't NEED to be perfect beings to solve world problems.
We have done it before, as imperfect as we are.

The desire isn't democracy. The desire is NOT to be dominated, to not be subject to someone else's arbitrary power. Democracy is a way of organizing political power in response to that desire. Democracy might be the best way of organizing to NOT to be dominated, but lots of people say that the now prefer some benevolent dictator. That dictator might dominate OTHER people, but not THEM, they think.

I don't want to straw-man you, but do you think that 90%-86% of our brain is doing nothing? Both humans and dolphins use 100% of their brains. The 10% brain myth is based on a misinterpretation of early neurology research and misquoted psychology lectures from the late 1800s and early 1900s. Early brain scientists found that stimulating certain parts of the brain with electricity caused no muscle movement. They labeled these areas "silent cortex," which people mistakenly took to mean "unused." In reality, these areas handle complex thinking, language, and planning.

HOW would we achieve a Level 1 civilization in approximately 200 years?
It takes a huge system of cooperating entities to achieve anything.
Do you think that anything supportive of that achievement is happening
in the Middle East? I don't think so, because their governments are preoccupied with keeping the people satisfied and docile enough to
not prefer death over living one day longer under their rule.
If the rest of the world turns to governments like that, there will be
no advancements whatsoever, there will only be societal collapse.

"Utopia is perfect" is not supported by that definition.

There is a difference between 'ideal' and 'perfect':
Ideal = the best or most desirable version according to a particular standard or goal. It can be something you aim for, even if it isn't fully achievable.
Perfect = having no flaws, defects, or shortcomings at all.

Or in short:
Ideal = as good as you want it to be.
Perfect = impossible to improve.

In any case, I don't think that we disagree on the terms that you just defined that much. What we disagreed most over is the definitions of 'socialism' and 'communism'. Those definitions are very broad, and that's the problem, because then 'someone' can claim "You want to have a authoritarian state that controls people, because you say that you are a socialist!". That is called a 'semantic shift', which is a version of a 'straw-man'.

Lets say that I'm in a debate with a cultural Christian. They call themselves Christian, because they feel warm and fuzzy inside from the love and empathy of Jesus and celebrating Easter and Christmas. OK? Now I accuse them of believing that the Earth is 6000 years old, the idea that people cannot be good unless they are a Christian and believing that the Ark of Noah story is accurate. That's a 'semantic shift straw-man'. There are many millions of Christians for which my accusation would be correct, but I am using the broad definition of Christian to associate them with something that they did NOT intend when they used the term "Christian".

However, I'm not interested much in defining terms correctly. I'm interested in understanding each other. If your Utopia is perfect, fine, I don't care. Just don't accuse me of my goals to be irrational, because Utopia isn't possible.
I don't claim that Utopia IS possible, I'm JUST proposing to work towards a BETTER society. One step closer, whenever possible, instead of agreeing with people who make it worse for most people, because it benefits THEM.