The Cheapest Curry You’ll Ever Make — Costs Pennies… and Tastes Unreal!
only registered users can see external links

Curries are a great way to eat vegan, healthy, cheaply, and tasty.

If the boats that got blown up were actually carrying drugs, your border security would wait until they reach American waters, arrest them, threaten them with life imprisonment and then use their "knowledge to catch bigger fish".
That you blow them up, destroying all the evidence and witnesses, is reason enough for me to not believe that these boats are transporting drugs, even if
it wasn't done by the most dishonest, self-incriminating regime you ever had,
that is clearly saying that this is just a ruse to topple Maduro and "take the oil".

Someone who has been rotting in prison for years doesn't know shit.
Trump just thinks that corrupt drugs criminals in foreign governments are OK,
if they are right-wingers, who will serve the US, instead of left-wingers who serve their own people. Here is an idea; send Hernández back to Honduras by boat,
so the Honduran authorities can blow it up.

They are not too dumb, they are too corrupt.

If that is what it is, then I like it. I'm not against good things, just because a political adversary is doing it. Hell, if Trump only did things I liked, he wouldn't be my political adversary anymore.

You cannot teach kids "investing". You can teach kids about the economy, the financial system, logical thinking, emotional intelligence & self-control, ethics & social responsibility, and practical life skills, like goal-setting and research skills (how to gather information, evaluate sources, and make informed choices).

Investing isn't some trick you can just teach. There are some investment options for people who don't have the skills I just listed, but that is just trusting some big investment firm to invest for you. It can make you some money, but mostly you are lending you their money to make money for the big investment firm. If it goes well, you get some money too, but if it doesn't you take the loss, because the big investment firms do a very job
of taking most of the profits for them and shifting the risk onto the clients.

If you start out with a system of health insurance that is too expensive for people, then trying to fix it with subsidies is creating complexities and the possibility for waste, fraud and abuse. You can eliminate the subsidies, but then health insurance will be too expensive
for lots of, or even most, people. The logical solution is to create the simplest form of healthcare funding, which is a single payer system, that pays for everything that people need, and letting doctors decide what people need.

This is a ONE TIME stimulus. Even $250 per month would be a drop in the bucket,
for people who are going to lose their Obama care subsidies.

About 1.25 million federal workers went unpaid during the shutdown: they missed paychecks after it began Oct 1, either because they were furloughed or working without pay.

Among them: roughly 670,000 furloughed employees, and ~730,000 who continued working without pay.

Social safety-net users were also hit hard: about 42 million Americans rely on the food-aid program Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), many of whom experienced benefit delays or disruptions during the shutdown.

Beyond direct government workers or SNAP recipients, many Americans felt economic ripple effects: cancelled flights, disrupted travel, deferred purchases, lost income or income uncertainty, which weighed on consumer confidence and spending.

Great idea, let AI spy on everyone, so you can call the slightest discrepancy fraud,
and destroy those people's lives. This is clearly what people have been asking for.
Americans LOVE government control, and permanent surveillance.

Maybe first start with letting AI check if the wealthy are doing their taxes correctly.
That might result in catching some bigger fish, don't you think?
Trump's fraud alone would easily pay for the SNAP 'fraud' they found.

"The deal’s inclusion of mineral exploitation and economic interests, with U.S. companies potentially entering the DRC’s critical-minerals sector, raises questions: some fear that economic incentives may overshadow justice, accountability, or genuine peacebuilding."

The Nobel Committee, a five-member body appointed by the Norwegian Parliament,
is not going to give Trump a prize for trying to steal another country's resources again,
by helping some dictator in power, even if that results in peace (temporarily).

True, many of them did leave the Democrats.
And now most of them see what a big mistake that was.
If you're fired from your job, because Trump called you a DEI hire,
that tends to sting a little bit.

True, but "forgotten about" is not as bad as "getting screwed hard".

"Trump, 79, Falls for Foreign Trolls Posing as MAGA Influencers in Embarrassing Self-Own"
only registered users can see external links

There are lots of these accounts that pose as American MAGA,
which now are turning out to be located in countries that do not
hold democracy in high regard, to put it mildly. Isn't that strange?

What's woke about it?

McGovern was Chief Creative Officer / Design Director, responsible for:
- Vehicle aesthetics (exterior & interior design)
- Brand identity (logos, marketing visuals, and overall “look & feel”)
- Concepts and styling of new models

McGovern did NOT decide the powertrain or corporate product strategy,
e.g., whether Jaguar becomes fully electric. That is the role of:
- CEO & Board (corporate strategy)
- Chief Product & Technology Officers (engineering, EV adoption)
- Marketing & Finance teams (market positioning, budget, risk)

He was responsible for the shift of Jaguar’s image away from its older, traditional base (classic luxury/“old British car” buyers) and instead reach a younger, more global, possibly more fashion- or lifestyle-oriented clientele: “a newer, international elite,” as some branding experts put it. There is nothing 'woke' or 'progressive' about that. The change felt too abrupt, too radical, and too detached from what made Jaguar; engineering pedigree, British heritage, the “soul” of classic carmaking.

Did this upset old conservative elites? Sure, but that doesn't make it 'woke'.

The heads of the company decided to make Jaguar 100% electric.
This designer probably thought that the customer base of Jaguar, didn't fit that strategy, so he tried to appeal to a younger customer base. I don't think he was wrong, but I am willing to agree with Jaguar that this is a big risk. The people who have the money to buy Jaguars tend to be 'older', affluent, conservative-taste luxury buyers. You can convince them to drive electric, but if you combine that with Avant-garde fashion, the old clientele will leave.

There is NOTHING 'woke' about trying to cater to the nouveau riche.

"Erika Kirk is LYING. I’ll prove it."
only registered users can see external links

A good actor can spot a bad one easily.

That's a very rare car. Actually, a one in a kind, car.
And it features Robert Dunn, from the Aging Wheels channel.
Best video you have ever shared! Thanks!

There is a well-known documentary about this car:
"Who killed the electric car?"
only registered users can see external links

Here is a video about that documentary:
only registered users can see external links

You cannot teach life experience to kids who grew up wealthy.

What you usually see, is that the kids of the wealthy just step back from leading the company completely, and just leave it to a CEO and a board of directors,
to squeeze as much profit from the company as possible, so the dumb, spoiled, useless brats can live their lives of luxury. There is absolutely no merit involved
in their ownership.

It's a nice one dude, but you cannot survive on belief in your cock, alone.

Racism is dead to you, because you want to say racist things,
without those things being called racism.

You don't think that society should be based on merit.
You think society should be based on classism / inherited privileges.
When you think that the dumb, spoiled, useless brats of the wealthy deserve to get transferred the companies that their parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents created, you DO NOT believe in merit.

Getting freebies, to vote for the side that represents them the best.
Is that exploitation? What definition of 'exploitation' is that?

There is one very important difference, Biden was supported by many competent, experienced lawmakers, diplomats and experts in their field, who he trusted and who could be trusted to do the right thing, if Biden was going to be crazy.
When Biden would order them to break the law, they would surely reject it.

Trump surrounds himself with completely unqualified, incompetent morons.
They better be loyal to Trump, no matter how stupid the things are that he wants them to do, and they never push back. Trump is ordering people to break the law, while threatening the death penalty if they refuse him. All of these people swore an oath to The Constitution and not to the president, but they are now following orders to break the law. It will require Neurenberg trials after this presidency.

Linus Torvalds Accidentally Slams Elon Musk
only registered users can see external links

"The average mechanic gross salary in Netherlands is €46.189 or an equivalent hourly rate of €22."
That's $53,918.27/year, $25.68/hour. Google can easily convert it for you.
Just ask "€22 in dollar" and it tells you.
There are of course many types of mechanic, at different levels of education.

At $53,918.27/year, the mechanic could get a mortgage between $215,656 and $269,570. There are still some houses in some areas of my country for sale at that price, but the house of my parents is 3 times the value.

only registered users can see external links

You couldn't leave it alone? Why don't you answer the other comment?

Generational wealth transfer is the cause of the problems, NOT the solution.
People's kids WILL be poorer than them, because politics favors the wealthy.
You should want those kids to be ABLE to make a life for themselves.

My father bought his first apartment at age 25. How old does the current generation need to be, before their parents die and leave them some money, to finally be able
to buy a house?

Houses are scarce goods, they are either owned by the people who live in them
or they are owned by the wealthy who ask top dollar for them, to become more wealthy and buy up more houses. It's our generation that can still make a choice to have people own their own homes, and prevent that the wealthy own everything.

Remember your side being outraged about the phrase "you will own nothing and be happy"? This was a prediction made by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in a 2016, and your side is turning it into a reality. TAX THE RICH, or be happy owning NOTHING.

With "so be it", are you saying; "bad luck for tradespeople, they will be poor"?

You're still not addressing the fact that tradespeople could afford to buy a home and support a family on one income. More people are working than in that time, but people are less well off, even if couples are both working. That's just a fact.

This is not just bad for tradespeople, it's bad for the whole country.
Didn't you say that you wanted America to make stuff again?
To make stuff, you need people to want to be tradespeople,
instead of everyone picking educations to be managers and lawyers.

If you want America to split itself off from the rest of the world,
and you want to close the borders to trade, you need to create
a strong internal economy. You cannot do that with poor people.

America was at it's strongest when the middle class was booming
and you had high taxes on the wealthy, which paid for big investments.
Now your middle class is suffering and your country is losing its place
in the world. The ideas that you support are clearly the cause of this,
but you keep supporting those failed ideas. The US is crumbling.
There is nothing MAGA about it, when Trump is clearly destroying America.

Trump is clearly "winning" too much, and he IS destroying your country.

I'm not forgetting that at all. And stop straw-manning me. That's NOT my opinion.

Why is worked taxed so high and inheritance so low?
The answer is NOT "because the parents already paid their taxes".
We can fix that and tax working LESS and tax having lost of money MORE
and tax generational transfer of money MORE.

Why is EARNING money taxed so much more, than HAVING money
and just GETTING money that you haven't EARNED yourself?

Yes, but the kids didn't. Why is that fair?
You're only focusing on the parents, not on the kids.
Didn't I ask: "Could it be organized more fairly?"?

Why is it fair that some people don't have to work, because their parents are rich
and some people have almost no chances to make it, no matter how hard they work,
because their parents are poor? Is that fair?

Why is winning the birth lottery rewarded and working punished?

phart, lay off on this one, let quint answer.
You already answered for me, don't answer for him too.

If your parents leave you $1,000,000 of inheritance, you pay $0 in taxes in some states.
If you work for 10 years and make $1,000,000, you pay $300,000–$400,000 in taxes.
Who thinks it is fair to get taxed for working, but not for just getting it?
Could it be organized more fairly?

OMG Phart, you really are denying reality, if you don't see that Trump's heart could give out any second. His hands are severely bruised, likely from IV infusions, blood draws, or medical procedures. If it's not from that, than the only explanation is that medications that affect clotting (aspirin, blood thinners, anti-platelet drugs) are increasing his hands to bruise easily.

His ankles are swollen, which indicates severe Chronic Venous Insufficiency (CVI), the only thing that was officially disclosed.

There are several videos that show Trump being unable to walk in a straight line, and recently him struggling to walk at all. He is declining too, quite rapidly.

When Biden was in office, you were outraged about the lack of transparency about
his medical condition. I don't see you being concerned about that now. In fact, you swallow their obvious lies hook, line, and sinker.

Is it still possible to be racist nowadays?
It's all free speech now, right?
Or does that only apply to MAGA?

"I find a way to earn more so that I can afford it"
Like what? Work 100 hrs/week?

I just told you that a mechanic could afford a house, on 40 hrs/week, when I was young. I'm talking about my father, who first bought an apartment and then a pretty big family home, only a few years later. Interest on mortgages was around 10% back then, and you had to pay a significant sum from your pocket.
My father was the family provider and my mom was a stay at home mom.
Buying a house like my father bought, today, takes TWO people, both with higher educations, and good steady jobs, to afford. A mechanic cannot even afford to RENT on their own anymore.
Do we all need to be managers or lawyers now? Are mechanics still allowed
to live a decent life? Or do they all need to work 100 hrs/week?

You're also not consistent; when we talk about education becoming unaffordable, you are saying that people don't need it, they should just be a tradesperson.
And now you are telling people to work and study hard to get good grades to get a scholarship to help pay the cost of college. Where are those scholarships coming from? Can everyone get them? This is obviously not a solution for everyone.
Even if everyone is working and studying the hardest that is humanly possible,
then scholarships are STILL going to the few smartest people.

Why do people need to do all this "finding ways to make more money",
when they didn't need to do that before?

That 500,000 dollar house was 230,000 dollar, not even 2 decades ago.
Wages didn't go up that fast, so what happened?
Why did life get less "fair,easy or cheap" in only 20 years?

You keep giving nonsense reactions, to obvious problems. Be more honest.

Here is a video to tech you about your rights, so you don't get screwed by a cop,
like this girl was. The cop is breaking several laws and he's lying.

"Cop Arrests 19 Year-Old Girl Illegally, Her Dad Helps"
only registered users can see external links

After you outlawed slavery, the former slaves were still exploited horribly,
through the early 1900s. It was almost slavery.

I know about carpet bagging, it's when opportunistic Northerners exploited
the poor Southerners. Why do you think I call Trump a carpetbagger?

Just because you have to share a bit with other people doesn't take all your accomplishments away, or the satisfaction of having them.
Why would you think that?

How about the "I take care of my village" attitude?

To be indoctrinated, there needs to be someone doing the indoctrination.
There is none, it's 24/7 celebration of capitalism here too.
I cannot turn on the TV or radio, without being fed right-wing lies.
I recognize it, because I can think for myself, that's what happened to me.
I see what is happening, and I understand how to recognize causes.

There are simple facts that you cannot deny. Housing was mostly done by the government before, when most people could easily afford to rent, and a mechanic could buy a house. Then housing was left to 'the market', making investors wealthy, and now only couples with two highly paid jobs can afford to buy a house. Owning a house is the strongest wealth-building tool in capitalism, but the number of people who can afford it has gone done a lot and keeps going down. That's hard evidence for right-wing policies fucking the average person over. Why don't you understand?

I actually have a good reason to get out of bed, because my job is worthwhile and it pays well. Do you know how many Americans hate their jobs? They work and work and work, and they still don't make enough money to pay for a $500 emergency.
Do you think that is good motivation to get out of bed?

Everything is backwards with you, because YOU consume propaganda 24/7.
You are sharing it here. It's all designed to divide people, blame each other,
for why you're all working like slaves for peanuts, so you don't notice that
the wealthy are taking all your money.

How do you tell someone who is getting scammed that they're getting scammed?
What needs to happen to you, to make the blinders drop from your eyes?

Bullshit, maybe some land was bought, but most of it was just stolen,
and the original inhabitants murdered or put in reservations.

The slaves were used for the base commodities of the economy.
They produced most of the raw goods. That's what built up America.
The whole argument why slavery couldn't be abandoned was that it was necessary
for the development of America. Obviously America did fine without it, but the South thought it important enough to have a war over it.

Reparations are not based on skin color, but on progeny. For slavery-based reparations, the eligibility criteria would almost certainly be limited to Black Americans who can demonstrate direct lineage to enslaved people in the United States, not all Black people in general.

Europe was built on the backs of poor people, who were almost property,
but they weren't captured in one land and sold as slaves in another.
You love to rewrite history, don't you.

Did she hurt your feefees?
Of course you ARE all living on stolen land.
You cannot give it back, because most of the original owners were genocided.
And you can also not be proud of building a nation, because the slaves did most of that.

You can still be thankful for the end of the civil war, which meant the preservation of the United States as a single nation and the triumph of freedom and equality for all its people. The values that triumphed with the Union victory were:
- National Unity
- Abolition of Slavery
- Freedom and Human Rights
- Democracy and Constitutional Government
- Communal Responsibility and Compassion
In essence, the values that "won" were the core American ideals of liberty, unity,
and justice for all, even as the nation continued (and still continues) to struggle with
the full implementation of these values.
That's something that America accomplished, instead of stealing it or making others
build it for you. That is the essence of America and what made America great.
And you can be sure that Rep. Ayanna Pressley is thankful for that.

The difference is that overdue bills under Biden were caused by Covid,
while overdue bills under Trump is a direct result of tariffs and the trade war.
It will become much worse, when the higher health insurance costs start hitting.

You are correct that Amy Klobuchar isn't the sharpest tool in the box.

Blaming a lefty for something he has obviously not done,
while looking away from the country going to shit.
Can you not see how you are losing all sense of reality?

They'll have to do better, or it's the end of Ford, in at most two decades.

I am using "individualism" pejoratively, as in "rugged individualism".
In that sense, it means the opposite of solidarity. It means you're on your own,
no communities of people helping each other in a time of need.
It is sold as freedom, but it actually strips the thing that made humanity prosper.
Yes, it is creating mental illness, to push people apart, like your movement is doing.

I am personally very much an individualist. I don't do anything just because it's what society expects of me. The term for that is "nonconformist individualism".

I am very much an autonomy-focused individualist. I value:
- Personal freedom of thought
- The right to choose your life path
- Not being pressured into traditional roles
- Authentic self-direction

This aligns with:
- Existentialist individualism (Sartre, de Beauvoir)
- Left libertarian / anarchist individualism
- Liberal humanism
- “Self-direction” in modern psychology

However, I am also a socialist, which means that I am definately NOT:

1) Atomistic individualist
- The belief that people are essentially separate, self-contained units
- Downplays interdependence
- Treats community as optional or irrelevant
- Often assumes social obligations = loss of freedom
This is the type many socialists (and sociologists) criticize.

2) Egoistic or competitive individualist
- Prioritizes self-interest above all
- Views society as a competition of individuals
- Measures success by outcompeting others
- Favors inequality as a natural outcome
This is incompatible with socialist values.

3) “Rugged” individualist
- “Everyone should fend for themselves”
- Distrust of social welfare, solidarity, public services
- Resistance to collective safety nets
- Often tied to neoliberal or libertarian-conservative ideology
This is the main type of individualism that I reject.

4) Market individualist
- Defines freedom mainly as consumer choice
- Sees society through a market lens
- Frames people primarily as economic actors
- Accepts or encourages large inequalities as a result of market outcomes
Definitely at odds with democratic socialism.

Is this all you had to say about that?
I was talking economics mostly. Got anything to say about that?

Who is prospering when the economy is doing well? Not the country.
With benefits, it's the people who prosper, without it's the wealthy.

Your country is for 70% dependent on internal consumption.
It's not the wealthy who create a healthy economy, it's the people.
If the people have money to spend, the economy prospers.
The only escape from that economic principle is trade, but Trump created tariffs.
You said you don't care about trade, but if you want your economy to do well,
you need Americans to buy your products. Lowering wages is a downward spiral.
Your billionaires cannot spend your economy healthy.

Maybe you should think about people not spending money on useless expenses
to directly pay the wealthy, without creating economic activity. For instance, high rent
for buildings that have existed for decades. That's just a clear handout to the owners
of the buildings, that creates almost no economic activity. Another is health insurance.
It only takes a lot of money from everyone, to transfer money to the wealthy, without creating health benefits for the people. It damages the economy, because it reduces people's spending power, without creating much economic activity. They are leaches.

What's the cause of the high number of mental illness cases in your country?
I think that it's the individualism, and the anti-rationality movement.

Sure, there is even a video of her blowing a boyfriend.
I would think her hotness would make the car more desirable.

Is there a difference between a country prospering and the people prospering?

Was the smell in that car worse than he expected?

New Study Reveals Brexit's True Price Tag Is Staggering
only registered users can see external links

It has been many years ago that I took cash from an ATM, but I can remember that I used an option sometimes to select the bills that it pays out. ChatGPT found some information about several major U.S. banks that have ATMs that let customers select the denomination of bills when withdrawing.

Chase Bank — Some “denomination-select” or “smart” Chase ATMs let you choose how your cash is split (e.g. $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100 bills).

PNC Bank — PNC has upgraded many of its ATMs to allow denomination choice, sometimes including smaller bills like $1 or $5.

Bank of America — Some of their ATMs (especially at larger/ metropolitan branches) reportedly support choosing between different bill denominations (e.g. $10, $20, $50, $100).

Wells Fargo — At certain upgraded or branch-location ATMs, mixed bill options (beyond just $20s) are sometimes available.

27 miles away is a bit far to get the desired bills from an ATM.
I would suggest finding a small store and exchanging the money there.
They are usually happy with smaller bills, because they can use them for change.

My girlfriend is on friendly basis with two shop owners. She sometimes exchanges
change for big bills with them, specifically to help them fill their cash register.
It depends on the business. Some get small bills all day from customers, overloading the cash register, requiring them to take trips to the bank to get rid of them. Those businesses wouldn't like you asking to exchange your small bills for their big bills. One of the shop owners my girlfriend knows has a souvenir shop. She often has pretty rich tourists paying with big bills for a small item, requiring lots of smaller bills in the cash register.

An analysis of a creationist movie, pretending that creationism is science.
only registered users can see external links

It starts with addressing how they all pretend to have scientific doctorates,
while those are all honorary titles from Christian colleges, that have no recognized accreditation to ensure it meets established standards of quality in education.
That means they have NO academic titles, and they are lying before the movie even starts.

Someone in the comments said: "Basically, they are just buying their own trophies
and claiming that they "won"."

✅ 2. How accurate have the old climate models been?

A 2019 study (Hausfather et al., Geophysical Research Letters) evaluated 17 climate models from 1970–2007.

Results:

Most models predicted today’s warming almost exactly once you account for real-world CO₂ emissions.
Their average accuracy was remarkably high.

Classic examples:

James Hansen’s 1988 model: Today’s temperatures fall between his middle (“Scenario B”) and high (“Scenario C”) projections — because emissions grew faster than expected in the 1990s–2000s.

IPCC 1990–2001 models predicted ~0.15°C warming per decade.
Actual warming since the 1990s is about 0.18–0.20°C per decade.

In short:
👉 The warming has tracked very closely to mainstream predictions.

✅ 3. Which scenario are we currently on (best case, worst case, or middle)?

Climate models use different emissions pathways (formerly “SRES,” now “RCPs” or “SSPs”). Here’s where humanity actually is:

🌍 We are not on the best-case trajectory

SSP1-1.9 (≈1.5°C world) → Humanity is not reducing emissions fast enough.

🌍 We are also not on the worst-case trajectory

The old “business-as-usual” high-end scenario

RCP8.5 / SSP5-8.5
is now considered unlikely because energy systems have shifted somewhat away from coal.

👉 We are currently closest to a middle-to-high emissions scenario

Most analyses put us near:

SSP2-4.5 (medium emissions)
or

SSP3-6.0 (high but not catastrophic emissions)

This corresponds to:

~2.4–3.0°C warming by 2100 if current policies continue.

If countries meet their long-term pledges, possibly ~2°C — but pledges are not policy.

So climate change today is playing out extremely close to what mid-range models from decades ago predicted.

Thunberg was banned from Venice after she participated in a protest that dyed the
Grand Canal green. But calling that “polluting historic waterways” is a loaded portrayal;
the demonstrators say they used non-toxic dye, and there is no proof of long-term pollution or damage. In other words: the “ban” and “dyeing” are real, but the “pollution of historic treasures” claim is more rhetorical spin than verified fact.

You are pushing a destructive right-wing agenda; Climate Change is real and destructive
and it's NOT left-wing to want to protect nature, and humanity that is dependent on it.

“None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true.”
That's an absolute lie, climate change is progressing as scientists predicted.
Many past “predictions” have already come true.

Climate scientists’ projections from the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s included:

✔ Continued global warming
Predicted since the 1970s.
Outcome: Correct. The planet has warmed about 1.2°C relative to pre-industrial levels — almost exactly what early models projected.

✔ More frequent and intense heatwaves
Predicted in the 1980s–1990s.
Outcome: Correct. Heatwaves are now more frequent, longer, and more intense on every continent except Antarctica.

✔ Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline
Predicted in the 1980s.
Outcome: Correct — the summer sea-ice minimum has declined by ~40% since satellite records began in 1979.

✔ Sea-level rise accelerating
Predicted since the First IPCC Report (1990).
Outcome: Correct — global sea level is rising faster today than in the late 20th century.

✔ Heavier rainfall & flooding
Predicted in the 1990s under a warming atmosphere with more water vapor.
Outcome: Correct — extreme rainfall events have increased globally.

✔ Increased wildfire risk
Predicted since the 1990s due to higher temperatures and drier vegetation.
Outcome: Correct, especially in western North America, Australia, Mediterranean, Siberia.

So the claim that “none of the predictions came true” is simply misinformation.

Mark Kelly - Trump has called for my execution because he didn’t like what I had to say
only registered users can see external links

No, it's not discrimination?
Yes, it is discrimination, because you accuse ALL OF THEM doing it,
and that's not true. And there is no link with BLM.

ChatGPT doesn't agree with your origin story:

The fashion trend of wearing pants low enough to show underwear—commonly called sagging—is generally traced to U.S. prisons in the 1970s–1980s, and later to hip-hop culture. Here are the main explanations:

1. U.S. Prison System (most commonly cited origin)
Prisons often forbade belts, because belts could be used as weapons or for self-harm.

As a result, pants frequently sagged, especially if they didn’t fit well.

Some versions of the story claim it signaled sexual availability, but historians and correctional officers largely dismiss this as a myth; the fit of clothing was simply poor.

2. Hip-Hop Culture (1990s onward)
Rappers and hip-hop artists adopted the look, partly reflecting prison culture and partly as a style of rebellion.

Artists like Tupac, Snoop Dogg, and groups like Onyx wore saggy pants in music videos, bringing it into mainstream youth fashion.

3. Skater and Street Cultures
In the 1990s and early 2000s, skateboarders also wore oversized, low-riding pants for comfort and style, which further spread the trend.

4. Symbol of Rebellion
For many young people, sagging became a deliberate anti-establishment statement,
a way to challenge dress norms and authority.

In short
Sagging emerged from prison clothing restrictions, became popularized by hip-hop, and evolved into a broad cultural fashion trend.

American Explains: The World Map
only registered users can see external links