smollittlefrog

Do you see instances who's main purpose is to represent "people inside the more mainstream American Overton window of mid right to far right" that are even nearly as popular as Hexbear?

If you're browsing all you frequently see posts from Hexbear users. I'm yet to come across a noticable amount of posts from users from an instance which represent the group you mentioned.

(I couldn't even name a single instance that fits that description, because if they exist, they're not nearly as active as Hexbear.)

Toxic people exist on all public instances. But on some they're more common than on others.

The issue with Hexbear is that their users tend to talk in a very demeaning and insulting manner. About half of the popular posts on Hexbear are about making fun of people or communities. Their political views are less of an issue; it's more about their toxic behaviour.

anymore

They never did

You really think such a ban isn't supported by a large amount of voters? You think it's purely the "bourgeoisie" that's transphobic?

All 3 systems use openssl and get attacked using Heartbleed.

(And even if they don't reuse even a single piece of code, attackers can still just use multiple exploits.)

goalpost moving [...] is exactly what I got from you

I'm not sure whether you believe to be arguing without moving goalposts. Do you want me to tell you about some goalposts you moved? (E.g. asking me to apply my statements regarding Germany to all countries, including the USA.)

all to justify unlivable wages

Oh, the people in Germany (whom I was talking about all along) are living just fine.

the status quo is shit and failing far more people in the world right now than it is benefiting

Perhaps. Good thing I never claimed the status quo to be successful in all countries.

Can you please quote where I [made a claim about the USA]?

Smug status quo liberals like you phrase their bad faith questions like that all the time, but just in case you will surprise me, here.

[lots of quotes]

I'm sorry, I don't see where I explicitly mentioned the USA in those quotes.

Was it "A large part of the world's population"? (Note that it doesn't say "the entire world's population".)

You are obnoxiously ignorant of living situations outside of your own to the point that you prescribe maintaining the status quo to people you don't know that don't live anywhere near you do. You made the extraordinary claims, not me.

okay

Again, your ignorance is showing, paired once again with your arrogance.

sure

It is not working for most other people

Again, I never claimed that capitalism is well implemented everywhere. I only claimed that

it can work well without UBI

I made no such claims about Germany, but you certainly did about the United States

Can you please quote where I did that? Because I never made any global claim. I always referred either to "many countries" or "Germany", neither of which explicitly include the USA.

And according to your smug status quo advocacy, those people getting any more pay or being treated with any more dignity is bad

They can get paid more. But they're already dignified and already well paid (in Germany).

If you bent down and talked to someone sleeping in the street (as the rate of homelessness now rises here)

Where is "here"? Some country which didn't manage to implement capitalism successfully? I never claimed that calitalism does work everywhere, I claimed that can work everywhere.

Maybe US capitalism is shit. But it can work well without UBI (as proven by, you guessed it, Germany).

Again, you've admitted your ignorance about the United States there, and the situation of hundreds of millions of people that live in it that are not functionally wealthy in a material way that they actually experience.

I am indeed ignorant about the United States. This may surprise you, but I don't know about every economy around the world. I'm sure you don't either.

But I do know that a capitalist system can work well without UBI, as proven by the German system.

(Yes, I will keep using the German system as an example.)

"the current system" is failing those people and no amount of being smug about how status quo poverty for people that scrub toilets and pick fruit is somehow a good thing will change that.

As long as we haven't fully automated it, people will have to scrub toilets and pick fruits in any econonic system. What you wish for is for them to not be poor. Which they aren't (in Germany).

ignoring that a tiny percentage of the population actually benefits from those riches and the rest experience staggeringly higher cost of living

Are you claiming that people's actual wealth has not gone up in the past 50 years? That we don't eat better regulated food, that we don't own very advanced devices, that we don't eat food shipped from across the world?

Normal people's wealth does keep growing. That is a very obvious fact. You may claim that it doesn't grow fast enough, but it does grow.

What is your glorious German superiority proposal for those "not fulfilling" jobs, then?

The current system.

ignoring cost of living expenses

I don't have detailed knowledge of the US economy, which is why I keep using Germany as an example.

In Germany you are never one paycheck away from being homeless unless you're actively wasting money. As said before, 800€ is more than enough to live alone in an apartment. And you make more than double that (in the worst case).

As cited above, the GDP per capita in Germany doubles every few years.

How many times more do you think it has to be doubled until you and your friends deem themselves wealthy.

They never will. Because you, too, define wealth as being able to look down on others (in your social environment).

A large part of the world's population would consider themselves extremely wealthy if they had even near the income of a German worker earning minimum wage.

On a global scale, German minimum wage workers are very, very wealthy.

The only reason you'd ever consider German minimum wage to be too little is if you're used to extreme excess, if you've lived in a hyper wealthy environment all your life.

You're so used to extreme wealth, that you deem slightly less extreme wealth to be poverty. You consider it to be poverty, because the people surrounding you are even wealthier. You consider it poverty, because you can not look down on them.

What is "enough"?

In many countries, your basic needs are already fully met no matter which job you do.

E.g. in Germany working minimum wage full time gets you way more money than you need.

Minimum wage full time gets you about 2160€ before tax, which will be about 1650€ after tax (and healthcare etc.).

You can easily pay for your basic needs for less than half of that (even when living alone). The rest you can use to buy upgrades, like a new phone etc.

Minimum wage workers in Germany are already wealthy.

But of course, if you'd ask the average German minimum wage worker, they'd claim to be poor.

They claim to be poor because they can not afford modern luxury. They can not afford to pay for expensive brands, they can not afford to eat in expensive restaurants.

They can not afford to be lavish.

Now imagine if every person in Germany could afford twice as much (something that happens multiple times in a lifetime). Would they stop considering themselves poor? No, their entitlement would simply rise accordingly (as we've seen again and again throughout the thousands of years of history).

You can not pay people "enough". People do not care about their individual wealth. They only care about how wealthy they are compared to others.

The majority of people can never be wealthy, because people only consider themselves wealthy if they have someone (or rather many) to look down upon.