I said it myself because if it turns out to be true, I can live with it

in other news I think fios is finally coming to my neighborhood, I'm hyped to maybe get good internet soon

for the record I agree

I remember getting shit for insulting froyo's incredibly weak i58 lineup because "ur not a 2-time world champion lul"

yo so I was trying to put together a dope team on the dl but it doesn't seem likely, most of the people I wanted are not available. therefore im just testing the waters

that said, I may have reached the critical mass where the level of team I believe I should be playing on is too much better than any offers I can actually hope to get, so I'm not sure if I will play next season

the two biggest criticisms of me are prolly a) my personality and b) people thinking im old af so I must have plateaued

I cant argue with the former, I won't be for everyone personality wise, but I dont think the latter is true at all, I do think I improved a lot at the mechanical side of solly (ie jumps) towards the end of this season

demo is still prolly my better class dm wise but I can play both it and pocket fairly comfortably

gimme a chance (or dont ur call)

amazing ultiduo medic

i think i played on a 6v6 team with him once too, not sure though

that sort of thinking will lead to many more years of disappointment

it sorta makes sense, trading down is much better than trading up and theyre gonna be bad for a long time so a pick next year is fine

however if houston is really good this season that pick wont be too hot

still, compared to chi its nothing

lmao

/thread

https://twitter.com/MicahAdams13/status/857076340360708101

that would be the classical definition of libertarianism, yes. but it's not the way this test is using it when they say "libertarian socialist". by that they really mean "civil libertarian socialist".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_libertarianism

civil libertarianism is one facet of classical libertarianism. the other half is economic libertarianism.

I know this seems like a dumb battle of semantics but the reason I'm engaging in it is because that other dude was trying to use the unclear language to argue that free markets and other forms of liberty are inexorably tied to one another. I think this is complete bullshit; there are social democratic societies that are more free than authoritarian regimes with free markets (Pinochet's Chile for instance).

socialism is the opposite of economic libertarianism

but economic libertarians do not possess sole authority over what constitutes freedom and liberty

some people happen to believe that rich people are a lot more "free" than poor people because they have many more life options available to them and are not constrained by circumstance, and that poor people are deprived of certain basic rights, which we call positive rights

someone can be a civil libertarian and still feel this way

you're about 150 years too late on this train buddy, positive rights are ingrained in international law and the constitutions of most countries

if you think you're describing a utopian vision of how things aught to be then you might want to put down atlas shrugged and take a good hard look at yourself

rofl this might be the most ludicrous thing ive ever seen

because the turn of the 20th century was well known for poor people having long life expectancy and preventative care for infectious diseases right? that's why it was called the gilded age? because every working class person had gold-level health care plans?

people without access to health education and food
libertarianism
choose one; capitalism is antithetical to liberty

radicalized by 8chan?

he is my son

as in I am a civil libertarian and an economic socialist

I am in favor of drug legalization, scaling back on foreign wars, free speech, etc., but I also believe in universal health care, high taxes on the wealthy, environmental protection, etc.

not a super rare political ideology