In Other Words, The Weaker Among Us

[Rightguide]

Geez RG, that's pretty much self-evident. We need a little more social Darwinism around here.

There are those among us who, in the name of compassion, progress, or ideological purity, advocate systems that erode the very conditions that allow them to live safely and freely, public order, economic productivity, social trust, and cultural cohesion. When those systems fail, they’re shocked, not because the outcome was unforeseeable, but because they never imagined the rules would apply to them. It’s a form of political self-cannibalism: where they mistake virtue signaling for virtue, and learn too late that reality doesn’t bend to misguided intentions.

 

[ll74]

Lol

 

[eric_erosfan]

There are those among us who, in the name of compassion, progress, or ideological purity, advocate systems that erode the very conditions that allow them to live safely and freely, public order, economic productivity, social trust, and cultural cohesion. When those systems fail, they’re shocked, not because the outcome was unforeseeable, but because they never imagined the rules would apply to them. It’s a form of political self-cannibalism: where they mistake virtue signaling for virtue, and learn too late that reality doesn’t bend to misguided intentions.

So you two manly knuckleheads should be able to tell us when you served right?

 

[Rightguide]

Intelligent people care more than dumb people.

The old belief that intelligence automatically comes with a larger moral heart is conveniently held by people (like Lit's present-day iteration of Nimrod above), who think they’re the intelligent ones. In reality, intelligence just means you can construct better arguments (not that Eric has ever done that), not that you care more. Some of the coldest, most self-interested people on earth are brilliant. Meanwhile, plenty of so-called "dumb" people manage to care deeply about others without needing to intellectualize it. Confusing IQ with virtue is just misguided self-congratulation.

 

[Rightguide]

So you two manly knuckleheads should be able to tell us when you served right?

Military service is honorable, but it’s a vocation, not a universal rite of passage or a monopoly on character. By your logic, every man who built a business, raised a family, worked dangerous civilian jobs, trained military people, cared for the sick, or shouldered responsibility without applause is somehow less of a man because he didn’t wear government-issued camo. That’s nonsense. Societies have always relied on many kinds of men, not just soldiers.
Real manliness shows up in competence, accountability, self-control, and the willingness to protect and provide where you are needed, not in demanding that other people justify their worth to you with a service record. Using military service as a rhetorical cudgel doesn’t honor veterans; it cheapens them.

 

[Rebel5soul]

There are those among us who, in the name of compassion, progress, or ideological purity, advocate systems that erode the very conditions that allow them to live safely and freely, public order, economic productivity, social trust, and cultural cohesion. When those systems fail, they’re shocked, not because the outcome was unforeseeable, but because they never imagined the rules would apply to them. It’s a form of political self-cannibalism: where they mistake virtue signaling for virtue, and learn too late that reality doesn’t bend to misguided intentions.

Fools manipulated by the elites of their party who have used those programs as a means of stealing taxpayers monies. Like I said, we need more social Darwinism around here.

 

[eric_erosfan]

Military service is honorable, but it’s a vocation, not a universal rite of passage or a monopoly on character. By your logic, every man who built a business, raised a family, worked dangerous civilian jobs, trained military people, cared for the sick, or shouldered responsibility without applause is somehow less of a man because he didn’t wear government-issued camo. That’s nonsense. Societies have always relied on many kinds of men, not just soldiers.
Real manliness shows up in competence, accountability, self-control, and the willingness to protect and provide where you are needed, not in demanding that other people justify their worth to you with a service record. Using military service as a rhetorical cudgel doesn’t honor veterans; it cheapens them.

Everyone has the opportunity to delay their future plans for a few years to serve. It builds character and discipline. General Washington felt every American male should serve their nation as it brought people of different backgrounds and different areas together in a bond if brotherhood for a common cause.

Duly noted, you speak of courage and manliness but possesed neither when called upon to serve.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Fools manipulated by the elites of their party who have used those programs as a means of stealing taxpayers monies. Like I said, we need more social Darwinism around here.

Your president has made more money since he took office than in the previous 80 years.

Social darwinism? Lol.

 

[Rightguide]

Everyone has the opportunity to delay their future plans for a few years to serve. It builds character and discipline. General Washington felt every American male should serve their nation as it brought people of different backgrounds and different areas together in a bond if brotherhood for a common cause.

Duly noted, you speak of courage and manliness but possessed neither when called upon to serve.

When the Desert War broke out in 1991, I was too young to serve, When 9-11 happened, I was already working on a defense contract for the government that involved the U.S. Military. Only 3-8% of military-aged males actually served in the military in those years. So are you ready to crap on 92-97% of the male population who didn't or couldn't follow your path?

 

[schism666]

When the Desert War broke out in 1991, I was too young to serve

oh fuck

 

[Lazaran]

People with anxious tendencies are more likely to support left-wing economic policy​

by Eric W. Dolan
January 6, 2026
in Anxiety, Political Psychology

https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/anxious-worried-woman-750x375.jpg



New research provides insight into the psychological underpinnings of political ideology. The findings suggest that individuals who are prone to anxiety are more likely to support left-wing economic policies, particularly when they feel socially excluded. This tendency appears to stem from a deep-seated human need for community support during times of vulnerability. The study was published in the British Journal of Political Science.

“There’s a very entrenched idea in my subfield (political psychology) that anxiety makes people more conservative/right-wing. The idea is that conservative ideas are more comforting than liberal ideas because they provide simple, neat answers to questions about life and society,” said study author Adam R. Panish, a PhD candidate at Stony Brook University.

“But around 2010, political psychologists started publishing modern high quality data that showed the opposite — anxious people were scoring much higher on measures of left-wing attitudes, particularly economic attitudes. So I wanted to try to understand why we were seeing results that are the opposite of what longstanding theories would predict. At the same time, people on social media started talking about the rise of anxiety and depression among young liberals in 2022. So it seemed like a good time to take a closer look.”

The researchers proposed the “social support hypothesis.” This framework looks at political preferences through the lens of evolutionary psychology. For early humans, survival depended entirely on the support of the group. In a foraging environment, injury or illness could be fatal without the care and resource sharing of others. Consequently, the human mind likely evolved to perceive social exclusion as a severe threat to survival.

Modern individuals might interpret state-provided economic support as a contemporary equivalent of tribal care. If this is true, people who are sensitive to threats—specifically those with high anxiety—should gravitate toward policies that ensure material security when they feel their social safety net is lacking.

To test this hypothesis, the researchers utilized data from four large-scale, representative surveys. These included the American National Election Studies, the Cooperative Election Study, and The American Panel Survey from the United States, as well as the Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences from the Netherlands. The combined dataset included responses from nearly 18,000 participants.

Much more here: https://www.psypost.org/people-with...-likely-to-support-left-wing-economic-policy/

We've known this all along

“FOOLS rush in”…

“The better part of valor is discretion”…

“Look before you leap”…

“Measure twice, cut once”…



Reichguide



We. Told. Them. So.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Your president has made more money since he took office than in the previous 80 years.

Social darwinism? Lol.

Show us the receipts you mealy mouthed shit for brains.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

Geez RG, that's pretty much self-evident. We need a little more social Darwinism around here.

Oh, is that what you're calling it, baby killer?

 

[DeluxAuto]

Show us the receipts you mealy mouthed shit for brains.

You've never provided proof other than, "my FBI buddies who retired 30 years ago told me..." so please do fuick off with your bullshit demands of proof, shit for brains.

 

[HisArpy]

The left believes in the power of empathy. Ain't nothing that can't be solved with "good thoughts", yet prayer is dumb. Lol.

No one has ever accused the Left of making sense or being logical.

 

[Rightguide]

Show us the receipts you mealy mouthed shit for brains.

He has none. The President is taking no salary, and neither are some of his staff members.

 

[Rebel5soul]

He has none. The President is taking no salary, and neither are some of his staff members.

I know that but it makes no difference to compulsive liars.

 

[eric_erosfan]

Show us the receipts you mealy mouthed shit for brains.

He is literally selling his own crypto.

 

[eric_erosfan]

When the Desert War broke out in 1991, I was too young to serve, When 9-11 happened, I was already working on a defense contract for the government that involved the U.S. Military. Only 3-8% of military-aged males actually served in the military in those years. So are you ready to crap on 92-97% of the male population who didn't or couldn't follow your path?

Plenty of veterans out there who served in peacetime.

 

[PaxNurgle]

When the Desert War broke out in 1991, I was too young to serve, When 9-11 happened, I was already working on a defense contract for the KREMLIN that involved the RUSSIAN Military. Only 3-8% of military-aged males actually served in the Russian military in those years. So are you ready to crap on 92-97% of the male population who didn't or couldn't follow your path?

Fixed your post for you, so as to be more honest. Because so-called "Conservatives" believe in honestly and truth.