|
"law" training
|
# ? Mar 26, 2016 16:07 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 13:10 |
|
GunnerJ posted:"law" training It could that one bitcoiner/sovcit who fished some law books out of a dumpster and claimed that as the basis for his various genius theories.
|
# ? Mar 26, 2016 17:00 |
|
Straight faced assertions that capitalism is the best economic system EVAR... Are the sign of a person who hasn't read about any alternatives
|
# ? Mar 26, 2016 17:37 |
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Straight faced assertions that capitalism is the best economic system EVAR... I dunno dawg, I'd say ability to continue existing while the alternative fades away impotently is pretty important.
|
# ? Mar 26, 2016 17:47 |
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I dunno dawg, I'd say ability to continue existing while the alternative fades away impotently is pretty important. I'd say that capitalism's main focus for existing is to repress others and create scarcity in an age of technological advancement such as today, but hey it beats feudalism so why change right?
|
# ? Mar 26, 2016 17:59 |
|
It doesn't continue existing. It's had to change multiple times over the past 150 years just to stop itself from imploding. Each new iteration is called 'capitalism' but there's a reason even capitalist economists differentiate the stages of capitalist history. Plus the whole social-democracy thing continuing to exist despite the best attempts by the laissez-faire crowd.
|
# ? Mar 26, 2016 18:03 |
|
Tesseraction posted:It doesn't continue existing. It's had to change multiple times over the past 150 years just to stop itself from imploding. Each new iteration is called 'capitalism' but there's a reason even capitalist economists differentiate the stages of capitalist history. Yeah but don't tell machina that he just had to get in his sick pot shot. I got burned so hard man
|
# ? Mar 26, 2016 18:06 |
|
Tesseraction posted:It doesn't continue existing. It's had to change multiple times over the past 150 years just to stop itself from imploding. Each new iteration is called 'capitalism' but there's a reason even capitalist economists differentiate the stages of capitalist history. It's also worth noting that capitalism claims a lot of success but the greatest successes of capitalism had more socialism than people let on tossed into the mix. It turns out that pure, unrestrained capitalism is loving awful but a hybrid economy actually works pretty well. One of the reasons food stamps is such a successful program is because of that; the socialism is "everybody that can't afford enough food gets free money to buy food with." The capitalism part is that these people can spend that how they please rather than creating a huge bureaucracy that tries to decide who gets what. "Hey brah, sorry you can't feed your family, have some fuud buxx. Go buy just like...whatever."
|
# ? Mar 26, 2016 18:55 |
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I dunno dawg, I'd say ability to continue existing while the alternative fades away impotently is pretty important. Don't you mean the ability to continue existing by folding in just enough of the alternative to stave off revolution?
|
# ? Mar 26, 2016 18:58 |
|
UrbicaMortis posted:So Giantbomb recently posted an article about the value of unions in games development. It's pretty good but the relevant bit to this thread is the libertarians appearing the comments to angrily yell about the free market. Well, I guess it's refreshing for one of them to just come out and (literally) literally say "the should die, and I consider this to be the best possible outcome."
|
# ? Mar 26, 2016 20:18 |
|
UrbicaMortis posted:So Giantbomb recently posted an article about the value of unions in games development. It's pretty good but the relevant bit to this thread is the libertarians appearing the comments to angrily yell about the free market. It never ceases to amaze me how working class people side with their employer over their fellow working class people. You would think as a worker that your interests would be shared and protected more by other workers than the people cutting the checks.
|
# ? Mar 26, 2016 21:36 |
|
Mr Interweb posted:It never ceases to amaze me how working class people side with their employer over their fellow working class people. You would think as a worker that your interests would be shared and protected more by other workers than the people cutting the checks. Turning the workers against each other is capitalism 101. It encompasses nearly every tactic used by employers to keep wages low and minimize working rights.
|
# ? Mar 26, 2016 21:38 |
|
Mr Interweb posted:It never ceases to amaze me how working class people side with their employer over their fellow working class people. You would think as a worker that your interests would be shared and protected more by other workers than the people cutting the checks. It's pretty depressing. Me and some people at my work are quietly unionising but as there were five of us at the last meeting and the company has 1000 people in it, i'm not getting my hopes up. It's not even the case of people siding with the employer so much as nobody really considering unions as a normal thing anymore. I'm 23, so my generation was born about a decade after Thatcher started the process of loving over the unions. By this point, the idea of being in one simply doesn't occur. One of my colleagues, who isn't stupid, just didn't know what their purpose was when I brought them up. Since my company is pretty young with the vast majority around my age, I'm not hopeful of the union getting bigger. Hard to convince people to pay the £14 a month for something they don't understand.
|
# ? Mar 26, 2016 22:33 |
ToxicSlurpee posted:One of the reasons food stamps is such a successful program is because of that; the socialism is "everybody that can't afford enough food gets free money to buy food with." The capitalism part is that these people can spend that how they please rather than creating a huge bureaucracy that tries to decide who gets what. "Hey brah, sorry you can't feed your family, have some fuud buxx. Go buy just like...whatever."
|
|
# ? Mar 26, 2016 22:50 |
|
Nessus posted:So would you say things like Wisconsin instituting ever more tight restrictions on what you can buy with Uncle Sam's food funbucks are making things more like a Stalinist hellscape, not less? Check it out: http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2011/07/22/if-i-were-in-charge-of-welfare/ quote:Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job. Government-imposed food rationing with crap selection, forced sterilization, inspections to eliminate vice, lovely barracks housing, punitive conscript make-work labor, and loss of your political rights are all about freedom as long as it's for undeserving lazy poors!
|
# ? Mar 26, 2016 23:22 |
|
Geeze look at all of those dog whistles. "You're a lazy poor so obviously that means you have spinning rims and a fridge full of 40 oz liquor, probably tribal tats too" Although I am surprised that he doesn't want poor people to have tattoos, that's unusual for someone who basically wants to create forced labor camps
|
# ? Mar 26, 2016 23:30 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Don't you mean the ability to continue existing by folding in just enough of the alternative to stave off revolution? No I did not mean that... unless we were using the Fox News definition of socialism. So long as you apparently are though, I guess capitalist systems can just adapt better to new situations than socialist ones seeing as they've come to dominate at the end of the 20th century. GunnerJ posted:Check it out: http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2011/07/22/if-i-were-in-charge-of-welfare/ As frustrating as the occasional welfare cheat is, it is law and order attitudes like those held by this writer that have led to our modern wasteful welfare system. Tons of rules have already been put in place by people similarly frustrated like this guy. And all those rules require even more taxes to pay for workers to enforce them. You can't win that game without causing more damage than a no-poo poo cheat ever could, which is why it's called a tragedy of the commons.
|
# ? Mar 26, 2016 23:55 |
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I dunno dawg, I'd say ability to continue existing while the alternative fades away impotently is pretty important. Might makes right.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 00:14 |
|
Man, I love that. "Getting a job was easy for me, how could it possibly be hard for anyone else?"
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 00:40 |
|
So I didn't get a chance to read the latest issue of The Baffler until my flight home today and hoooo boy, I can't believe I missed this story. http://thebaffler.com/salvos/everybody-freeze-pein It's about malarkey cryogenics pushers who, because of some backing by certain Silicon Valley Techno-Futurist types, aren't being treated like the cranks they are and, instead, get overly credulous media coverage in the NYT. It centers around an Arizona-based company called Alcor, which makes a lot of bold claims about their ability to preserve you so that you may be resurrected when our inevitable transhumanist future arrives. They don't seem terribly good at what they do. quote:Forty-five minutes after Suozzi was declared dead on the morning of January 17, 2013, her corpse arrived at Alcor headquarters, where a crack team of quacks shaved her head and drilled a number of sizable holes into her skull. Microphones were then inserted in order to detect the cracking sound of tissue-destroying ice crystals—a freezer-burned brain being even less useful to the imaginary reincarnators of the future than an otherwise undamaged one. At 9:33 a.m., Suozzi’s body was moved to an operating table. Ten minutes later, Alcor’s technophilic necromancers completed “cephalic isolation”—a euphemistic neologism that means they cut off her head. Such bloodless jargon obscures the macabre slapstick of the antics in the morgue—er, “operating room.” As the magazine account went on to relate:
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 00:44 |
|
I saw seventeen posts since this morning and got all excited. Thanks a lot you guys.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 01:08 |
|
DeusExMachinima posted:As frustrating as the occasional welfare cheat is, It shouldn't be frustrating to you.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 01:14 |
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:It could that one bitcoiner/sovcit who fished some law books out of a dumpster and claimed that as the basis for his various genius theories. Didn't Glenn Beck also claim you don't need funding for education because public libraries have all the knowledge you need?
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 01:52 |
|
What are the odds of the convention being totally deadlocked and Ron Paul striding in wielding a colossal golden spear?
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 02:00 |
|
mojo1701a posted:Didn't Glenn Beck also claim you don't need funding for education because public libraries have all the knowledge you need? Multiple right wing crazies have said that. While also saying that libraries shouldn't be free either. The worst example was the "If I was a Poor Black Kid" article. If you haven't read it, and wish to feel seething hatred today, go find it and read it. It's probably the most awful, out of touch thing I have ever read.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 02:05 |
|
That cryonics article is....sad and infuriating. I remember back in the old days of the Rotten Encyclopedia, where their cryonics piece was a funny jab at the morons and cheats, while still making plenty of sense. This is just harrowing. Unethical failed ubermensch playin upon the fear of death of the spergy Silicon Valley tycoons, and catching poorer, deluded people in the crossfire.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 02:42 |
|
GunnerJ posted:Check it out: http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2011/07/22/if-i-were-in-charge-of-welfare/ The thing that gets me about that list is how spiteful and regulation-heavy it is. Arguing against the existence of a welfare state at all (while wrong) is at least an honest position; this douchebag, on the other hand, is engaging in that libertarian-bizarre (well, maybe not, considering how many of them are apparently sociopaths and selective misanthropes) rhetoric where somehow regulations are bad, unless it's to punish or hurt a group that the libertarian finds disdainful. Free us, but bind them in chains! If poor people are to be in thrall to a government, they had better be in thrall. It's as if the prospect of slavery can never be completely exorcised from hardcore libertarian ideology.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 05:14 |
|
When we are talking about people who literally and unironically believe that telling two homeless people to fight each other for 25 cents is 1) charity and 2)completely moral and justified as no one was coerced, you have to expect a few sadists and eliminationists to start openly masturbating at the prospect of suffering at some point.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 08:07 |
|
Hey, how could anyone say that they were truly free if they didn't own literal slaves to compare themselves to?
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 12:54 |
|
GunnerJ posted:Check it out: http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2011/07/22/if-i-were-in-charge-of-welfare/ I get the impression these kinds of people literally think of welfare recipients not as human beings but factory farm chattel to be pressed for extraction of maximum work efficiency. E: Also at voluntary consent to rules =/= violation of rights. At the very least it is absolutely abuse. E2: By this logic, they would be saying "you have nobody to blame but yourself" when it comes to someone applying for government assistance after being laid off due to company downsizing/mergers or unemployed after a company goes under due to economic recession/contraction. That's a pretty hosed up way of viewing the world, and one I mainly blame on an American culture of individualism and worship of workaholism. Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Mar 27, 2016 |
# ? Mar 27, 2016 14:04 |
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:I get the impression these kinds of people literally think of welfare recipients not as human beings but factory farm chattel to be pressed for extraction of maximum work efficiency. While I'm not all that familiar with the cultural developments during the period, I've gotten the impression that during the early stages of the cold war, the US elite was pretty frightened by the prospect of the Soviets guaranteed standards of living compared to the depths of poverty seen in the states at the same time. I'm kind of getting the idea that apart from instituting some basic services, a big part of dealing with that PR-issue internally was to demonize the poors even further. While it's obviously a lot more complicated than that, I'm guessing the cold war didn't really help.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 15:36 |
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:Free us, but bind them in chains! If poor people are to be in thrall to a government, they had better be in thrall. It's as if the prospect of slavery can never be completely exorcised from hardcore libertarian ideology. Nosfereefer posted:Hey, how could anyone say that they were truly free if they didn't own literal slaves to compare themselves to? I'd say, "well, that explains the libertarian fascination with the Confederacy," but by this point I don't think anyone finds it the least bit inexplicable.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 15:54 |
|
Nosfereefer posted:While I'm not all that familiar with the cultural developments during the period, I've gotten the impression that during the early stages of the cold war, the US elite was pretty frightened by the prospect of the Soviets guaranteed standards of living compared to the depths of poverty seen in the states at the same time. I'm kind of getting the idea that apart from instituting some basic services, a big part of dealing with that PR-issue internally was to demonize the poors even further. While it's obviously a lot more complicated than that, I'm guessing the cold war didn't really help. If actual Iron Curtain life was ever a serious PR concern for the West (lol Holomodor, lol tankies), it definitely became less of one as the experiment went on. SedanChair posted:It shouldn't be frustrating to you. idgi
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 16:11 |
|
DeusExMachinima posted:If actual Iron Curtain life was ever a serious PR concern for the West (lol Holomodor, lol tankies), it definitely became less of one as the experiment went on. Nosfereefer posted:the depths of poverty Nosfereefer fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Mar 27, 2016 |
# ? Mar 27, 2016 16:23 |
|
Nosfereefer posted:While I'm not all that familiar with the cultural developments during the period, I've gotten the impression that during the early stages of the cold war, the US elite was pretty frightened by the prospect of the Soviets guaranteed standards of living compared to the depths of poverty seen in the states at the same time. I'm kind of getting the idea that apart from instituting some basic services, a big part of dealing with that PR-issue internally was to demonize the poors even further. While it's obviously a lot more complicated than that, I'm guessing the cold war didn't really help. I think at one point the Soviet Union was using the deplorable state of race relations in the US as propaganda against it.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 16:24 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I think at one point the Soviet Union was using the deplorable state of race relations in the US as propaganda against it. Well, the old "in America they lynch negros" was a tried and true deflection tactic throughout the proud history of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, while it didn't mean that Soviet atrocities didn't happen, it was still a pretty true statement.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 16:28 |
|
Now ask yourself, is this the result of a stupid welfare system or genuine scarcity? And then you'll have the answer as to the difference between this and the picture I posted.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 16:45 |
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Now ask yourself, is this the result of a stupid welfare system or genuine scarcity? And then you'll have the answer as to the difference between this and the picture I posted. I don't think the people who can't eat suffer any differently if they're hungry because of capitalism or hungry because of communism.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 16:59 |
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Now ask yourself, is this the result of a stupid welfare system or genuine scarcity? And then you'll have the answer as to the difference between this and the picture I posted. The point is that the United States Government was legitimately worried about how those huge discrepancies in wealth reflected on themselves during the propaganda war. If you want to debate the advantages/disadvantages of capitalism/socialism you're pretty much a few decades too late I'm afraid.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 17:08 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 13:10 |
|
You have to love welfare fraud or you're still a libertarian.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 17:41 |