Laurentide

You might like the novel Singularity Sky. It's about a planet, artificially maintained at a 19th-century tech level by its authoritarian government, which is suddenly visited by a post-scarcity civilization. Cellphones begin to rain from the sky all over the planet and whoever picks one up is given an offer: Tell us a story and we'll give you anything you desire. One person asks for a self-replicating replicator with a fully stocked blueprint library and it ends up being extremely disruptive in many of the ways you're imagining.

From the article:

“Should we be supporting Independent candidates who are prepared to take on both parties?”

[Sanders’s question] was also influenced by the campaign of former union leader Dan Osborn, who ran this fall as a working-class independent in the deep-red state of Nebraska.

Against an entrenched Republican incumbent, and without big money backing or party support, Osborn shocked pundits by winning 47 percent of the vote.

Bernie Sanders: I think that what Dan Osborn did should be looked at as a model for the future. He took on both political parties. He took on the corporate world. He ran as a strong trade unionist. Without party support, getting heavily outspent, he got through to working-class people all over Nebraska.

It sounds like you can still get pretty far by just addressing the actual concerns of the working class and offering real solutions to problems. Still an uphill battle, definitely, but maybe not an insurmountable climb.

This was already explained to you earlier in the thread. "Male" and "female" are, biologically speaking, not distinct and mutually exclusive categories in humans. This is the case naturally, and the terms become even less useful once you account for those who modify parts of their biology, whether by surgery or by artificially triggering natural biological processes, to bring those parts into congruence with other parts of their biology.

"Biological male" is a slur. It has no basis in science. It's a term coined by bigots to misgender trans people with sciencey-sounding words so their abuse looks reasonable at a glance, in much the same way that proponents of Scientific Racism use pseudoscience in an attempt to legitimize white supremacy.

Also the term is referring to their original status pre-hormonal or other gender affirming care so no.

We already have a far less problematic set of terms for that: Assigned Male at Birth (AMAB) and Assigned Female at Birth (AFAB). "Biological male" is a scientifically misleading phrase that bigots invented to slander trans people and it should not be used by anyone.

Just as some AMAB (Assigned Male At Birth) men want to look more masculine and will work out at the gym or take testosterone supplements, some AMAB men are femboys and may temporarily take feminizing HRT to look less masculine.

Both are trying to change their bodies to better fit their gender identity, and femboy is clearly a different identity from gym bro, but they are both male gender identities.

The same reason anyone would be: because their current body doesn't match their gender identity and they want to change that. This person just happened to start inside the same arbitrary social category as their destination.

I made .iso files and mounted them in virtual drives to do the same thing. I could have used cracks but I didn't want a virus and I still had the delusion that doing things "fairly" actually meant anything.

They're not talking about natural monopolies. A natural monopoly is when there's some barrier to entry that prevents competitors from entering the market, like a need for prohibitively expensive infrastructure.

What OP is talking about are situations like Walmart opening a store in a new location, operating it at or near a loss to drive the local competition out of business, and then jacking up prices once no competitors remain. The government isn't forcing them to do that.

The child abuse and fear mongering are things that they're proud of and believe are justified. Trying to address it just makes them feel more powerful.

Calling them "weird" works because their whole ideology is based on them being the normal ones. If you take that away, you also take away their entire (false) claim to authority.

I was responding specifically to the implication that Biden isn't trying to do loan forgiveness, which is factually incorrect. It's the courts that keep blocking the plan and forcing it to be narrower in scope, not Biden.

As for this proposed cap on rent increases, I fail to see how a limited increase is worse than an unlimited one. Is it less action than we need? Definitely. Is it insulting that it took the credible threat of a fascist dictatorship to extract this tiny concession? Absolutely. Am I going to kick and scream because it isn't everything I wanted? Hell no! Just the fact that the President is seriously discussing this is an improvement, and we need all the leftward momentum we can get if we ever want to start pushing the Overton window on economic issues.

I used to scoff like this at early efforts to decriminalize marijuana. "Lower penalties? State-issued medical cards with heavy restrictions? None of that actually solves anything! It needs to be completely legal!" Now look at where we are: Fully legal in 24 states, partially legal in most others, and the DEA has started the process for rescheduling to a less-restricted category. It was slow going and we're still not quite where we need to be, but that's way more progress than I ever thought we would get!

Seems kind of weird to blame the guy who is trying to do the thing you want and not the people who keep blocking it from happening.

No mention of trans people, which is odd given that Florida is a Do Not Travel state for its government's efforts to criminalize being transgender.