Where I’m from if you’re out on bail or not (and what conditions are attached) is up to the court or the police depending on where you’re currently at in the justice system, you don’t pay anything regardless of your wealth.

I prefer this system as the reasons whether or not someone ought to be bailed don’t really have a lot to do with wealth usually so it seems unfair to make it a factor, but I can certainly see the reasoning to put a number on it as I suspect it does dissuade people breaking their bail conditions.

Scared people for the most part. While I’m not American myself I grew up in an adjacent (Calvinistic Baptist) worldview and I cannot emphasise enough how much fear plays a role in that worldview. It’s pretty much a socially transmissible anxiety disorder in my experience, the evangelical worldview is ironically very well evolved to spread from one person to another because it directly hijacks your scepticism by upping the stakes too high for your brain to process it properly. You’re not allowed to express the fear though because that would be evidence you’re not really saved.

I’m not making excuses for them at all, I mean I’m very aggressively pro-LGBT rights and I grew up in that world so it’s definitely possible to escape it. What I am saying though in the spirit of ‘know your enemy’ is that in many cases these people from age five upwards will have been taught they are utterly disgusting in the eyes of god and deserve after they die to forever be tortured gruesomely beyond the power of English words to express because they were born human and are therefore guilty of original sin. These people see themselves as having been measured by the supreme creator of the universe and been found personally, individually beneath contempt. The only way you can escape your completely just fate of being eternally consciously tortured is if God predestined you to be saved and you’re one of the limited few that Jesus’s sacrifice actually applied to, in this world most of humanity exists only to be burned for the glory of God and if you ever fall away from the worldview you were never saved to begin with.

Again, I’m in no way excusing their bigotry which I loathe especially deeply having seen it at closer quarters than most. This is what we’re dealing with though from a purely practical point of view, if you or I are wrong then we’re just wrong but if these people are wrong then they will suffer a fate many times worse than death. This is why encounters with evangelicals are really intense for the most part, and why they’re so needlessly horrible from a secular perspective. While they’d never admit it in a million years the ideology is pretty trauma-driven for many of its adherents whether it’s the fear of hell, fear of losing their entire community even though they don’t believe any more, fear of rejection over some stupid theological difference (this lot make the revolutionary left look broad-church by comparison when it comes to factionalism) or any of the other fears that sound completely insane outside of that community but subjectively are very real.

deleted by creator

Ireland has used this system since independence a century ago which suggests it would work pretty well in countries like the UK and Canada too which share a fairly similar machinery of government.

I’m British and I’d genuinely vote for this on a single-issue basis! Unfortunately FPTP means we have a duopoly of two Frankenstein’s monster UK-wide parties that in a reasonable electoral system would really be two or three each and will never abolish FPTP on their own as a result, the only chance would be as part of a coalition agreement with a regional party and thanks to FPTP coalitions are rare in the UK system. In 2015 the SNP (Scottish independence party, long-term incumbents there) got 56 seats off 1.4 million votes while UKIP (right wing populist party, very Brexity and went the way of the dodo soon after) got one seat off 8.3 million votes. UKIP were awful in my opinion but that was downright undemocratic.

I grew up in a Calvinistic worldview where every week you were reminded you were utterly disgusting in the eyes of God and simply by being born you deserved to be tortured more brutally than the English language can adequately express because you had by virtue of being human inherited original sin, and the only way you could get rid of it is if you had been predestined to be saved by Jesus (who did not come to save everyone, only a select few). Anyone can imagine the horrible effect this polar opposite of therapy has on rates of mental illness in that community. This kind of worldview was popular with the English Dissenters (those famous ‘persecuted pilgrims’ belong to this category) who later crossed the Atlantic in large numbers and I think I can see its unpleasant legacy in American political thought both left and right.

If there is one idea I could delete out of existence it’s this notion of original sin in both its religious and secular forms. I would make it unlawful to tell a child that they were born guilty of anything simply for existing or that guilt can be inherited from anyone because of how psychologically harmful this is. While it’s usually not the intention there exists a trend that de facto results in telling boys they’re guilty of various things simply for existing, and then in the same breath we act surprised when scumbags like Tate are hoovering up their attention instead of everyone telling them what a piece of crap they are for being born. Manly qualities in my mind are qualities like physical and mental strength in the face of adversity, having the moral courage to make difficult decisions for the good of a group, a deep sense of good sportsmanship, being willing and able to take risks when required, that sort of thing. The left should be all over that as its history is littered with such examples!

Yeah living through the fifth once-in-a-generation crisis in this generation is powerful left-wing propaganda.

Yeah our problem is that our voter turnout is too geriatric, not our politicians. More young people need to vote.

Yeah I feel we had a less extreme example of this phenomenon in the UK with Boris Johnson. Lots of people took his bumbling blonde persona at face value but the reality is he’s a cunning political operator without any basic moral instincts.

deleted by creator

There’s decent evidence that ‘corporal punishment’ and plain old abuse have very similar effects on the psyche of a developing child, even if there wasn’t there’s something downright unmanly about hitting someone much weaker than you that isn’t allowed to fight back.

A good flag for the subject of Zuckerberg then!

People forget that Thatcher was a greengrocer’s daughter too rather than a product of the Eton to Oxbridge to Parliament pipeline of privilege. In my opinion Thatcherism was like a doctor giving a near-lethal dose of chemotherapy to a patient with a broken leg but at least it was done with the intention of helping the patient, I feel the present incarnation of Tories have known since Brexit that they’re bound for a decade out of power and just want to behave as much like Russian kleptocrats as they can get away with before the election next year.

I don’t mean the Russian kleptocrat line ironically either, Boris Johnson literally put the son of one into the House of Lords as the Baron of fucking Siberia. You can’t make this up.

Also it varies depending on the variety of English you’re speaking. While we do have a few people who follow the US a bit too closely generally when a British person is talking about ‘liberals’ or ‘liberalism’ they mean something quite different to what an American would be saying with the same terminology which leads to confusion on both sides. In the UK it sometimes means ‘the Liberal Democrat party’ but usually it just means ‘the opposite of authoritarian’, for example someone might say ‘Kier Starmer’s policy on drug reform is illiberal but the Green Party’s is liberal’ and it’s descriptive rather than ideological.

To be honest conservatism is pretty different on either side of the Atlantic too, or at least it was until both countries succumbed to populism and demagoguery. One-nation conservatism in the UK for example isn’t an intrinsically broken and contradictory ideology in the same way ‘Johnsonism’ is even though being well to the left of it myself I disagree with many of its premises, and while British politics outside of a minority of nutters doesn’t really care what religion you are on the whole it’s a considerable faux pas to let it be seen as directing your policy in office whereas American conservatives play to a very religious base. Blair over here still gets shit to this day for saying God will be his judge on Iraq, presumably forgetting the British electorate are a little less patient to judge than the almighty.

Aww, I almost feel bad for him. Almost.