#you cannot explain a 50 dollar difference on a piece of fucking paper like this when pricing is decided by the seller alone

[theicemer]

ok I wanted to come here and make a very calculated post about kpop photocards and member pricing but I’m actually so angry that it would just be a bunch of curse words so I’ll leave this here without a further comment

[wolvesdevour]

I come from a family of Republicans. Well, for the most part. I also have family that worked in politics, so there’s a lot of Washingtonians, too (which isn’t so much of a party as eh... A deep understanding of the politics and how they work to the point were parties are viewed as useless to adhere to). But the thing is. Republicanism has changed so much over the last century. I grew up with Repubs who are pro-LGBT, pro-Feminism, pro-abortion, pro-choice, pro-protection of sex workers, pro-environmentalism, pro-immigration rights, anti-racism, etc. Also heavily anti-religion in politics.  The problem is that Republicanism has changed. Some Republicans are still that way--or you pick and choose (some may be less anti-racism, but for everything else, etc; tbh, they’re human but they’re also human and that means you can talk to them and make deals and shit). But there’s new Republicanism that is the Tea Party. They’re whatever Trump is. That’s not... That’s not Republicanism. I had an interesting talk the other day, but there’s 4 major political designations: 1) socially conservative, fiscally conservative 2) socially conservative, fiscally liberal 3) socially liberal, fiscally conservative 4) socially liberal, fiscally liberal How 1 looks or works, I’m not really sure. I guess its “I don’t want anyone to have rights and I’m not sharing my money.” So... Traditional libertarians, maybe? I’d say that sounds a lot like libertarianism. (RE: Everyone should sustain themselves by their own means. So if you’re trans and need medical help? Too bad. Earn your own damn money.) This system doesn’t work. Because society requires aiding each other to some degree as well as exchange. More on that below. Number 2 works by saying “Only THIS group deserves aid.” Number 3 is what most “sane” Republicans I know say they are. They support people, but are cautious of rampant spending. Newer republicanism is more akin to 2, not 3. “Only white, straight Christians deserve aid and rights.” [Disclaimer: 2 is not exclusive to one group, but because we’re talking American politics, this is why I say “white, straight Christians.”] I feel that 3 is highly debatable on how it functions. For example, I consider myself fiscally conservative, but on the scale of conservativeness [fiscally], I am more liberal than some of my family. I am what I consider more German or Scandinavian in fiscality, which means: higher taxes for greater liberal aid. [Disclaimer: Taxes scare people. This is a pretty complicated topic which I don’t feel like getting into right now because I’m trying to keep this short.] Number 4 is... I’m not sure of what political system to call this. I’m not a large fan of this because our society runs inherently on exchange. Money is an artificial form of trade. I’ve tried to search for a workaround to money. No matter what I found, trade is required. If you’re wondering, this is also why I dislike 1 for a similar reason: it shuts down all trade systems. 4 would state that society deserves aid and rights, but for free (or: workers who are providing aid aren’t receiving payment). If you’ve noticed, I mention trade, taxes, and money a lot. Bear with me, but I’m gonna get biological for a second: We’re human beings, right? But we’re also animals. Primates. Hominidae. Homininae. Homo sapiens.  So let’s break that down a bit. Prosimians--think: lemurs--are more primitive of the primates. This isn’t judgement; they’re more related to our overall ancestors than the simians (monkeys and apes). Prosimians generally have social grooming. All primates, for the most part, have social grooming. This is called allogrooming. In more advanced primates, we start seeing more complex exchanges. This means if one individual of a species is grooming the other, they will expect some sort of return. You may also see a primate with food--such as grapes--and in exchange for the grapes, may receive grooming or other favors from other individuals in its social group.  So what about us? We’re not different than other apes, really. This is why we may get angry at our coworkers, friends, family, or partners. If we’re doing all the work and we’re not getting what we view as adequate exchange, we will be unhappy.  This is why trade is important to politics. You cannot have an entirely free system because if you take away all forms of money, you then must rely on trade, such as “I have 10 oranges; you have a book. I will trade you my bag of oranges for your book!” That is a more chaotic form of trade because it will require constant dependence on how much your item is desired (and lasting of your item--oranges go bad, books can suffer damage). What if the person already has 50 oranges because it is peak orange picking season? 10 oranges is worth a piece of paper, not a book! They don’t want more oranges. Money is a little more complex, because you still get resource fluctuations, but you also now have an item that doesn’t change. A dollar is a representation, not in of itself of value. Of course, this still has changes, such as: A dollar will pay for 3 oranges one month, and when oranges are highly abundant, it will pay for 10 oranges. But the dollar itself remains “easier” structurally for individuals in society because if you have that dollar, you can always wait until next season to buy oranges. But if you only had a book, if you waited, maybe someone else already traded fewer oranges with their copy of the book and now your book is worthless to the vendor.  So um. Anyways. I have no idea how I got onto money and trade.  Essentially, my point being: There are no absolutes. I loathe the idea of someone is only conservative or liberal. It’s a bit of a lie, really. Because there is more than one type of conservative or liberal designation. Even among the 4 I listed, you have people like my Repub family members and myself. We both agree on taxes being important. Except we see it differently on how it should be applied. I personally prefer higher taxes for the rich. As someone who is in the higher classes I want higher taxes for the rich. It’s called being a fucking good person. I know of other people saying the same thing. But we may disagree on the level of higher taxes, etc. And that’s kind of my point, I think. Overall. Republicans aren’t evil. I’m not one. I’m a Washingtonian. But a lot of the concepts of Republicanism that people hate? It’s not a base of Republicanism. It’s people who are Republicans who are assholes. Because I know Republicans who are disgusted by what’s been happening to their own party, except they’ve become a minority. Or people who are hear a lot of “Republicans are shit; they should die.” and say “Fine, then you’re a threat or aggressive to me, so I will stop caring about you.” (There’s actually some credence to this phenomenon. It’s complicated and would require another post, I think to fully explain.) Then they become more radical--leaning more and more to 2 and 1 functions, rather than the more function 3 political function. This is also why when someone says “I’m very liberal,” I always ask how are you liberal? Because this could mean socially, fiscally, or both.  Labels can be useful, but they’re only useful when we understand how they’re being used.