Basman

Who are his "friends"? What proof do you have that he is siding with Nazis? Don't be conspiratorial. Right now its just a he-said-she-said situation, at which case its fair to give the benefit of the doubt.

I think he's just being awkward at best, edgy and immature at worst. I don't see there being any evidence that he is a genuine nazi.

Insects have the same problem that a lot of vegan dishes have in that you need to eat proportionally more to reach the same nutritional level as an animal product (how many bugs is there in 100 grams of insect?). I see insect products most likely being incorporated as an ingredient and as a snack at best, but it probably won't replace steak. Its not like we aren't already eating bugs. Honey is bee vomit and there is bugs in the flour of all the bread we eat. Shrimp and lobster is a close relative to land bugs. They are basically bugs of the sea. Its not a big deal if you don't notice that your toast has ground up meal worm in it.

Rage is respected when it is a means to action. Rage of action if you will. A raging man might like Billy Butcher might just kill someone with his bare hands. That commands respect. When women rage it is usually because they want their feelings heard and accepted but nobody really cares about how you feel. It comes of as catty and futile.

Because why would a rich person ever want to buy some random malnourished child in a backwater country. Obviously because they won't be missed by anyone who matters.

Insects might be traditional to certain cultures but only to those within the global south. Insect products can't look like bugs if they are too appeal to a western market. That aspect of western culture isn't going to change any time soon. Turn those grubs into an amorphous dough-like meat and call it "protein starch" or something. Nobody wants a burger and you can see the outline of grubs in the patty. That's disgusting. Being ecological is a bonus, not a selling point to the majority of costumers and it being made of bugs will easily turn people off. You can overcome that by marketing it as for example as a cheap protein source or as a delectable children's snack depending on how you package it. The bottom-line is that insect based products must provide a unique kind of value to the market independent of what it is made of, either by innovating with a well received food products or being a cheaper alternative that delivers a similar experience to the product it is undercutting.

Not being cute or charming is major factor for human moral attitudes towards eating insects not accounting for cultural attitudes.

Trump:

You are yet to present any evidence of any of your proposed ideas being effective. You are clearly just being close minded.

Trump and Musk during their meetings:

Two egos of their size in the same place would suck the atmosphere out of the room.

Legalization wouldn't put drug cartels out of business. The fall in prices would be offset by the increase in demand from the increase of supply. And it would be cheaper to export to boot. The bottom line is that hard drugs are harmful and what you are essentially arguing for is increasing their supply and use. There is no evidence that legalization of hard drugs actually works but they do present serious dangers. Not taking those dangers and social costs serious in the name of freedom is painfully naive. And this was really about the possibility of combating drug cartels in the first place. Again, legalization wouldn't positively effect their status as a terrorist organization from an American perspective. And either way, a cartel run Mexico undermines America in more ways than just drugs.

Then you shouldn't have a problem with discontinuing all health and food regulations. The business of these cartels is primarily logistical. Its the transportation of illegal products that make these cartel so successful. Making drugs legal won't curb them. And since they are already selling, legalization will primarily serve to increase the supply and use of harmful drugs. There is no need to increase the supply of hard drugs. You've never lost a close friend or family to an overdose, alcoholism or a drunk driver.

Arguably, morality itself serves a function of human survival, namely cooperation. Would you want to be neighbors with a known rapist or serial killer? Its quiet crucial to uphold morality when you think about it as a way to moderate behavior that doesn't serve the community. Why else do you get outraged at a rape or a murder in your neighborhood? Its like you've been wounded personally, and you can only heal once the perpetrator has been stopped. Because it could happen to you and your loved ones. Notice how everything that is considered immoral are things that are adversarial to survival. Morality is inescapably human. We just don't always agree what is and isn't immoral due to differing biases and goals. Other animals have no regard concerning morality. They are de facto non-moral agents unlike us humans. They have no need to entertain the sensibilities of its kin, doth the crocodile will eat your screaming children and sleep like an angel all in the same day just to forget it even happened in due time, like it was just another Wednesday. Do you remember what you ate last week? Or the week before? Your children are delicious, see, so its a simple matter. And the more they scream and squirm, the more it excites the hunt.

Most if not all hard drugs have no genuine and wholesome use and are a net negative to society in my opinion and we would be better of without them. Legalizing these drugs will only serve to engender their use and the deterioration of the community.

The drug cartels are essentially militant cults that undermine society through violence and exploitation. Its justified to combat it in a way that is of course legal depending on the severity of the situation, which you could argue that it isn't severe enough to justify a full-scale invasion but that isn't the only card on deck necessarily. If the drug cartels continue to expand their corrosive influence and destabilize Latin-America than it'll be increasingly harder to justify inaction.

When crypto bros dream of a decentralized economy, the quiet part they are not saying out loud is that they dream of the freedom to scam people no holds barred and no repercussions.

"Execute order 420."

If you could eradicate the supply then that would be even more effective if you think about it. Pull the issue up by the roots.

Being sleepy and old? People have such surface level interest in politics. Like what is Obama's legacy? Being black, Obamacare and drone striking a bunch.

You can have a relationship with AI by the literal definition of the word but its quiet shallow compared to a relationship with a person. AI is essentially an object, so its like having a relationship to an anime pillow but one that agrees with everything you say according to its programming.

Ecology is relatively complex concept. Its hard to appreciate today. More like conquest. De facto conquest has been the default for the majority of human history and still is arguably, just that the balance of power is such that open conquest is impermissible in the majority of cases due to our international economy and advanced weapons of war. Just look at China or Russia. They are hankering to invade their neighbors. Colonization has only really happened the last 500 years. Colonizers tend to win not only because they are technologically and numerically superior but also because they are more united than native tribes, who are often caught up in their feuds and conflicts. The smart colonizer can pay one tribe to kill their rival. The silver lining is the ability to cooperate at scale, which is why tribes are ineffectual geopolitically and only really the most isolated tribes remain today. As hunter-gatherers? I doubt it. I'm not talking about a flower-power commune. Really, the natural evolution for a tribe is conquest due to a lack of control over ones resources. Like an animal, you are completely dependent on your environment with minimal control. Its why hunter-gatherer tribes tend to be nomadic. Its necessary to ensure you don't run out of resources (and also why humans are an intensely territorial species). In such a situation, the ability to simply take from others is extremely effective, especially considering that at the stage of a tribe anyone outside of your tribe doesn't receive the same level of moral consideration.

Particularly moral presentism when analyzing the past, like colonialism, pre-feminist society, slavery, whether or not the Wehrmacth was "evil" during WW2, etc. In my experience, moral presentism can quickly devolve into painting the past with an overly broad brush and lacks appreciation for moral relativism. What if slavery was in its historical context moral due survival pressure in the time? Of course, it would be unspeakable today but today is not hundreds of years ago. Or just a couple of decades ago even. That's why moral presentism strikes me a lower perspective. It lacks nuance. Not to mention that it doesn't appreciate how future societies might look upon present society. If your morally righteous about the past then you should make peace with future humans being morally righteous about how you live right now. Its kind of unfair in sense when you consider that perhaps it wouldn't be possible to have the advanced societies that we thrive in today if the Romans didn't use slaves. Or if the natives weren't ethnically cleansed during the settling of America. Et cetera.

I find the book series by Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens, 21 Lessons For The 20th Century and Homo deus excellent reads on the survival challenges of humanity, historically, politically and in the future. Sapiens in particular has shaped a lot of my understanding of human nature.

He's basically reiterating the obvious from a left-wing perspective. Trump and by extension the right does not take the issues of everyday people seriously in practice. All populism with no bite.