I am not happy about using Fudgebook. I have repeatedly posted in many places that the figurehead of its corporation is a stereotypical wanker who steals other people’s ideas and gets called a genius for it by the mainstream media. I have also had plenty to say about the fact that he says a lot that clearly does not reflect his actual behaviour. If he does not believe in privacy, why is he not posting us pictures of every time he shits, flosses, washes his hair, and so forth? Continue Reading
A common argument used by conservative shitheads who do not wish to pay the “enormous” costs of welfare to people other than themselves is that if welfare transfers to the poor were eliminated, small organisations that are formally known as charities would pick up the slack. Aside from the usual stupidities associated with this argument, it is well worth examining a few concepts associated with it. For one thing, the idea that privately run, disparate, and highly specialised charities can collectively replace a centrally organised and carefully planned system of allocations is laughable at best and complete bullshit at worst. Furthermore, because charities are only beholden to the people that finance them, impartiality is a big problem. A certain “charity” in America, for example, refuses to even talk to the people that it makes most of its money by claiming to represent, not even allowing them a spot at the table, so to speak. If a government organisation were to treat the people that it claimed to represent in this manner, the media would go after it with a vengeance.