|
Mornacale posted:xwing, I'm interested in your support of outspoken segregationists Ron and Rand Paul. Are you in favor of racial segregation and, if not, why isn't it a dealbreaker in your Presidential vote? What are your feelings on the Confederate States of America and their war against the United of America. Thirding this question, I would greatly appreciate a response to this xwing. Also, if you do address your support for Ron and Rand Paul, could you also please provide your perspective on Rand Paul'said believe that the problems of America can be solved through society collectively embracing Christianity and basing our society on biblical morals. Also if you could explain why you support a Libertarian that opposes SSM on religious grounds that would be appreciated as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV_kt9PRNKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33c3WgS6xk4 Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Jun 4, 2016 |
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:56 |
|
|
Goon Danton posted:And inflation is far from inevitable. If consumers are running around with more money, companies are more than happy to make more product to accommodate the increase in demand. The only reasons they wouldn't just up production to keep up with demand is if there's another constraint: labor shortages, cash shortages, or material shortages. The first two are laughable on their face in this economy, and the third is highly industry-dependent and won't cause general inflation unless it's a broad-use good like oil. The thing many libertarians and conservatives don't understand is that even if inflation does occur, it would still be less than the increase in wages. Like, if wages increase 10% there might be corresponding inflation of 1 or 2%. For some reason libertarians/conservatives by default assume that inflation would completely nullify any gains in wages, when that wouldn't be the case at all (unless you increased the wages and wealth of every single person and business in the country by that percent).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The thing many libertarians and conservatives don't understand is that even if inflation does occur, it would still be less than the increase in wages. Like, if wages increase 10% there might be corresponding inflation of 1 or 2%. For some reason libertarians/conservatives by default assume that inflation would completely nullify any gains in wages, when that wouldn't be the case at all (unless you increased the wages and wealth of every single person and business in the country by that percent). It's rhetoric used to justify the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Nothing more, nothing less; follow the money trail. All the freedom think tanks are being funded by super rich people who would like to become more super rich.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The thing many libertarians and conservatives don't understand is that even if inflation does occur, it would still be less than the increase in wages. Like, if wages increase 10% there might be corresponding inflation of 1 or 2%. For some reason libertarians/conservatives by default assume that inflation would completely nullify any gains in wages, when that wouldn't be the case at all (unless you increased the wages and wealth of every single person and business in the country by that percent). Also forgotten: even if inflation negates all wage growth, it still reduces an individual's debt because the principal of a debt is a fixed amount, and barring things like floating-rate mortgages, the interest is also usually a fixed percentage. Inflation eats into both, slowly devaluing the principal and making it easier for the debtor to pay it off, and immediately and directly cutting into interest. There's a reason finance people talk about the "real interest rate" for stuff like bonds, because over the long term, inflation matters and you can't just look at the nominal interest rate. Low-to-moderate inflation is a boon to debtors, which is why the creditor class hates it so drat much—banks make less money, and rich people can't just sit on their money, they're forced to seek out things to invest their money in to overcome it or grow their wealth. This is also why rich people looooove deflation: lower-class people already have to spend every penny just to make it from month to month, so it does diddly-squat for them; middle class people don't have the savings for it to make a difference—gosh golly gee-whizz, your $10,000 in life savings is now worth a whole $200 more each year!—; but rich people? With deflation they can literally do nothing with their money and get richer. (Deflation, ironically, would slow down the economy over the long term. As one person put it, your money needs to stink, just a little bit, for you to want to spend it. Otherwise why spend it when it'll be worth more tomorrow?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
On the other hand, Weimar Germany. Anything other than an iron grip on preventing any inflation whatsoever will immediately lead to Weimar Germany and therefore Hitler. Why do you want to support Hitler, libs?   e: what's that? economic desperation leads to hitlers? Well, I'm sure we'll be able to control any wild men who come up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
Except the weimar government got a handle on inflation after a bit. The economic crisis that brought Hitler to power was a mix of deflation and high unemployment, iirc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 11:09
|
|
|
What's a Melonfucker? (i've seen it come up in the Libertarian party candidate posts as well, and im confused.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 13:00
|
|
|
Basically someone got sick of jrod ignoring all their questions and just asked him if he'd ever hosed a watermelon. Jrod flipped out in an entertaining way, but notably did not actually deny the accusation at any point in his rant. Since then it has become something of a meme.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:What's a Melonfucker? It's self explanatory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:What's a Melonfucker? New thread title confirmed
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Basically someone got sick of jrod ignoring all their questions and just asked him if he'd ever hosed a watermelon. Jrod flipped out in an entertaining way, but notably did not actually deny the accusation at any point in his rant. Since then it has become something of a meme. If it was also that he continued to get super angry about getting asked about whether he'd hosed a watermelon without actually denying for around I think a year, finally eventually going "no I have not hosed a watermelon." If it had only been that first time it wouldn't have had the same staying power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
It was a classic bad-faith tactic because either he has to look ridiculous denying loving a watermelon or you can say he never denied it. But it's Jrod so he pretty much gave up the right to expect not to be made fun of.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
Y'all are ignoring the important question. Is he a self made melonfucker?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Y'all are ignoring the important question. Is he a self made melonfucker? He is entitled to hurf his durf. (Autocorrect changed that to 'hurt his serf')
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:(Autocorrect changed that to 'hurt his serf') Would that be a violation of the Non-Agression principle, or in Libertopia would the serf have voluntarily entered into a serfdom contract with him and thus willingly and without coercion given up 90% of his crops and his right to Not Be Beaten?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:Would that be a violation of the Non-Agression principle, or in Libertopia would the serf have voluntarily entered into a serfdom contract with him and thus willingly and without coercion given up 90% of his crops and his right to Not Be Beaten? NAP only applies to the self-made man. Underlings are fair game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:It was a classic bad-faith tactic because either he has to look ridiculous denying loving a watermelon or you can say he never denied it. But it's Jrod so he pretty much gave up the right to expect not to be made fun of. Or he can realize this is a comedy forum and make a joke about being a melon baller.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Pretty sure if he just said "yup, I gently caress melons. Don't kinkshame." people wouldn't have made fun of him for it so hard. It would have turned into a harmless joke that people brought up occasionally instead of what it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
It's petty internet bullying yes, but it only occurred after literally three years of jrod being just the absolute worst.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Yeah that sort of thing happens and then people wonder why the poor are so unruly lately. I just have to wonder if these people think that there are infinite jobs out there or something along those lines. There just aren't enough jobs to go around at all let alone decent ones. Then that gets trotted out as an argument to actively suppress wages and make bad jobs worse. Yeah, it's been mentioned quite a few times in this thread, but it's just really annoying how it's impossible to have a conversation on complex topics like unemployment when liberals and conservatives can't even agree to the ground rules. i.e. We both agree that if there are more people looking for work than there are open positions, then we cannot legitimately assume that a high UE rate is due to said unemployed people being lazy, shiftless hustlers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
xwing posted:You're probably benefiting from this in some way. Your 401K, cheaper goods, etc... "Well yes Mr. Douglass, it is too bad for them but I don't think you're appreciating the benefits here, get a load of the phenomenal prices you can score on Mississippi cotton shirts, pretty snazzy eh?" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 11:34 on Jun 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
My roommate used to be the most hardcore Marxist I know, used to rant against his rich "self-made" dad and granddad all the time. About a year ago he went so far to the left that he fully wrapped around and became an AnCap, started to idolize his grandfather. His dad pays for his rent and most of his expenses, so he can smoke 100$ of hash a week. This thread is quite the catharsis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
I see I'm late to the party, and it's already been explained that personally benefiting from something you can't control is not sufficient to consider it good, and that higher wages come out of very real and ludicrous profits. I would like to add that since capitalism is regarded as the most powerful force on the planet, it will find, as it always has, a way to thrive under OSHA regulations and wage floors. I do my best to never assume malice where ignorance will do, and I believe lack of exposure to information is the main reason xwing and I do not see eye to eye. I would like to focus on the little sympathy for those without, for they are merely a carbon copy of xwing but acting lazier due to arbitrary reasons or preferences. I feel that the circumstances of poverty are best understood by looking at stories about individuals. To that end, I would like to know, xwing, what your thoughts are about the man in this video and his life's circumstances https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUVmegV69og Curvature of Earth posted:As one person put it, your money needs to stink, just a little bit, for you to want to spend it. Otherwise why spend it when it'll be worth more tomorrow?) I'm doing my part for the stink! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Colonel J posted:My roommate used to be the most hardcore Marxist I know, used to rant against his rich "self-made" dad and granddad all the time. About a year ago he went so far to the left that he fully wrapped around and became an AnCap, started to idolize his grandfather. His dad pays for his rent and most of his expenses, so he can smoke 100$ of hash a week. This thread is quite the catharsis. Is there a name or physiological explanation for shifts like this? I see it all the time and can usually smell the sort of person a mile away. You know, the dude who was super religious then becomes a hard core gently caress you dad atheist, then becomes religious again. Every time they switch they get even more vocal and dismissive of anyone on the other side of their current opinion. I vaguely knew a dude who had a huge chip on his shoulder about women and started getting into MRA style poo poo. Then suddenly when internet feminism started to become trendy a few years ago he got BIG into that. Then it was more and more posts critical of various "types" of feminism for not being inclusive or feminist enough, then basically all of "mainstream" feminism for not being as logical or "getting it" as much as he personally did. Then it was full on gently caress you gently caress all feminists. All within maybe a year or two. Same with with politics too of course. Dude was raised rich and spoiled, hard core libertarian views. Suddenly comes in contact with actual leftist ideas and goes all-in down with capitalism. Comes into his parents money and business, is suddenly a centre-right champion of low taxes for job creators because the best thing you can do to help the working class is create good well paying jobs for them, and those can only grow when government is pro-business! But in every phase of their beliefs, you can always feel they don't really get why they are holding their current belief. It always seems entirely emotional, self-serving, or an attempt to fit in with their current peer group.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Is there a name or physiological explanation for shifts like this? Schizophrenia?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Schizophrenia? That's not what schizophrenia is and that's not what it makes you do. This is about as clever and accurate as making an ADHD joke, because lol, I guess those people just flit around a lot? What Baronjutter's describing doesn't have a real name, but it's very common. Let's call it yo-yo extremism. Nuanced thinking is a skill that must be taught and learned. If you're inclined to see things in rigid, black-and-white terms, then it's easier for you to snap from one form of extremism to another, rather than slowly grow from one extreme towards lifelong moderation. That's not to say it's impossible, merely that it's very difficult. This is made worse by a couple factors. One, people are human, and if your faith in something is completely shattered—or worse, if what you had faith in actively hurt you (e.g. anyone born gay into a fundamentalist family, or abused by a cult)—then it's natural to want to get as far away from that as you can, not just literally but also metaphorically. Two, rigidity is built into some ideologies, so if that's the first coherent ideology you're exposed to, not only do you fail to learn nuance, it's actively suppressed. The classic example of this is biblical literalism: either it's all true, or the whole thing completely falls apart. Some ideologies can only function with an all-or-nothing approach, because to accept nuance is to accept the destruction of that ideology. Therefore, if you lose faith, it's very difficult to just moderate a little, or adjust your stance here and there. Your whole ideology has to be thrown out, but again, since your last worldview devalued nuance, your first instinct is to look for a "better" ideology that's still simple and still offers a straightforward narrative, but is more consistent with the world (as you now think of it), rather than a more nuanced, complicated, and messier belief system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Is there a name or physiological explanation for shifts like this? I see it all the time and can usually smell the sort of person a mile away. You know, the dude who was super religious then becomes a hard core gently caress you dad atheist, then becomes religious again. Every time they switch they get even more vocal and dismissive of anyone on the other side of their current opinion. I vaguely knew a dude who had a huge chip on his shoulder about women and started getting into MRA style poo poo. Then suddenly when internet feminism started to become trendy a few years ago he got BIG into that. Then it was more and more posts critical of various "types" of feminism for not being inclusive or feminist enough, then basically all of "mainstream" feminism for not being as logical or "getting it" as much as he personally did. Then it was full on gently caress you gently caress all feminists. All within maybe a year or two. I wonder if the length of time between each 180 flip has a ratio of roughly Feigenbaum's constant
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Is there a name or physiological explanation for shifts like this? I see it all the time and can usually smell the sort of person a mile away. You know, the dude who was super religious then becomes a hard core gently caress you dad atheist, then becomes religious again. Every time they switch they get even more vocal and dismissive of anyone on the other side of their current opinion. I vaguely knew a dude who had a huge chip on his shoulder about women and started getting into MRA style poo poo. Then suddenly when internet feminism started to become trendy a few years ago he got BIG into that. Then it was more and more posts critical of various "types" of feminism for not being inclusive or feminist enough, then basically all of "mainstream" feminism for not being as logical or "getting it" as much as he personally did. Then it was full on gently caress you gently caress all feminists. All within maybe a year or two. My Narrativist Framework describes this behaviour pretty well I think. What you are describing is what I call a Narrativist switching different Outer Narratives. That is to say, this person doesn't actually believe in what they proclaimed so much as they use whatever beliefs they have at the moment to justify their selfish behavior by presenting their entire life in the context of a heroic struggle against some sort of evil.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Anyone who looks for employees in their day job able to comment on the claim that people would rather be on welfare than take reasonably high paying positions? I had a guy claim he couldn't find anyone who would take a $25 an hour painting job, I called bullshit but this isn't the first time I've had small time employers tell me a vast majority of people call them simply to satisfy the "looking for employment" criteria for their welfare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
Cross-posting from UK thread.haakman posted:Thread, I need your help. I need you to help define something for me, and then (due to my brain being fried from a tough teaching year) show me how to counter argue. I wonder if he's talking to jrode 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Anyone who looks for employees in their day job able to comment on the claim that people would rather be on welfare than take reasonably high paying positions? I had a guy claim he couldn't find anyone who would take a $25 an hour painting job, I called bullshit but this isn't the first time I've had small time employers tell me a vast majority of people call them simply to satisfy the "looking for employment" criteria for their welfare. It is possible that when you make more and more people jump through bullshit hoops in order not to starve you also get more and more people who just go through the motions. Also the idea that you should have to take any job whatsoever offered to you regardless of the conditions or your circumstances is pretty loving lovely in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Anyone who looks for employees in their day job able to comment on the claim that people would rather be on welfare than take reasonably high paying positions? I had a guy claim he couldn't find anyone who would take a $25 an hour painting job, I called bullshit but this isn't the first time I've had small time employers tell me a vast majority of people call them simply to satisfy the "looking for employment" criteria for their welfare. Id suck a dick for that job and I'm employed now so gently caress that guy
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Anyone who looks for employees in their day job able to comment on the claim that people would rather be on welfare than take reasonably high paying positions? I had a guy claim he couldn't find anyone who would take a $25 an hour painting job, I called bullshit but this isn't the first time I've had small time employers tell me a vast majority of people call them simply to satisfy the "looking for employment" criteria for their welfare. If that job has anything close to full time hours, post it in the "Reasons I hate working retail" thread in BFC and posters there would literally murder each other to take it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
$25 an hour for a painting job? I'm betting one of two things are true. Either 1) It requires use of equipment or certification that not many people have, or 2) it is incredibly dangerous. No way anyone pays that much for something anyone can just walk off the street and do. Or it is just complete bullshit like you said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I see I'm late to the party, and it's already been explained that personally benefiting from something you can't control is not sufficient to consider it good, and that higher wages come out of very real and ludicrous profits. I would like to add that since capitalism is regarded as the most powerful force on the planet, it will find, as it always has, a way to thrive under OSHA regulations and wage floors. I wrote out a long-ish reply last night and ended up falling asleep before posting it. Oh well here it goes... I'm probably not conveying myself well. I'm trying to be succinct so it's not a wall of text. It just allows those who aren't arguing in good faith more to rip apart and more of an excuse for those to simply pull a tl;dr attitude. I do believe I'm amenable to many things but to claim I'm ignorant because I don't share your viewpoint is presumptuous at the least and arrogant at the worst. It also why politics suck right now, no one is willing to understand or forge paths with others because their ignorant of "something" in the other's mind. I don't take offense though. This is the internet... it's just words on a screen from someone I don't know. First, I'll reiterate that I don't consider myself a Libertarian. I agree with Libertarians and the Libertarian Party in many instances though. I also make no apologies that this election cycle I'll be voting for Gary Johnson and the LP. I gave the Pauls as an example of what I find most analogous to my stances. That is not a 100% endorsement of their views... who can ever claim that anyway? It's a disingenuous argument to trot out every little random quote they've ever said that you don't agree with and pose it as a witch hunt question to me. I agree with Rand Paul more often than not and less so Ron. That's all. If others continue to post them and Rand specifically as "libertarian" I'm really going to roll my eyes and ignore it. Rand calls himself "libertarian-ish" which while terribly inelegant is good enough to convey the idea and where I feel I fit in the political spectrum. I obviously didn't convey it well, but I didn't mean that I have little sympathy for the poor. I was specifically in my mind calling out the people that whenever we talk immigration start getting irate that "Their taking American/my jobs!"... no, if we're having to import labor from somewhere, doesn't even have to be international it could be from other states, it means the locally unemployed are unwilling to work for the wage that is offered or unskilled for the job. Both of which are at least partially under their control. We can discuss why that happens and quibble of the solutions "until the cows come home", but my intention was not to imply some racist caste system enforced economically... if you pull that out of libertarian stances we're not going to get anywhere in discussion. I referenced a specific instance I deal with because I'm familiar with it. We don't have enough block layers locally. Millions in construction didn't happen because low supply has pretty much doubled the cost of block construction locally. Not only has the construction money not entered the local economy, but the money generated from the facilities was forgone too. I believe it does more good to have those jobs filled, even if just minimum wage, and the jobs done than saying we only hire americans at a "living wage" and the jobs don't get done with no one earning any wages. For that specific video. It's inspiring. It is also one way that the system is working properly, but I believe it is broken in others. His situation did not force him to pull the trigger and take another person's life. Being young and black in violent neighborhoods doesn't pull triggers. I will admit all evidence points to that our laws/systems are disproportionately affecting minorities. It's one instance that I feel there is a common ground for political change around mandatory sentencing laws and methods for reintegration. Luckily that man was given the chance instead of rotting in prison and is instead a productive member of society. I do agree with the video that college is a great thing. Education is a key part of improving a society. I have had plenty of education myself... It however is not a right or mandate. Just because it's a good idea doesn't mean that we should always do it and the least intrusive means of making it happen is the government's job. We can argue over the details, but my default will always tend to be it's not the government's job and we can get things funded without reaching into collective pockets with taxes. I think the government is pretty lovely at spending our money because there's no incentive to do it well or under budget if they can just tax more. Whichever poster that it was is right that the perception is Smaug sitting on a treasure of gold hoarding it is how many see capitalism. I don't have a problem with that. A single person could have 90% of the wealth in the world and rather than taxing the crap out of that person I'd want us to look at ways to get that one person to spend and work with the 10% that's "ours" flowing in the economy. Taxes by their very nature are coercive and should be minimized. To me there are very few ideas that are so good that we should tax everyone, and by extension threaten to throw people in jail if they don't pay those taxes. Uroboros posted:Anyone who looks for employees in their day job able to comment on the claim that people would rather be on welfare than take reasonably high paying positions? I had a guy claim he couldn't find anyone who would take a $25 an hour painting job, I called bullshit but this isn't the first time I've had small time employers tell me a vast majority of people call them simply to satisfy the "looking for employment" criteria for their welfare. Having been unemployed briefly in recent months... I have no idea why anyone would want to deal with that horseshit of "looking for employment" and documenting it. I only did it so my old bosses unemployment wages went up. Welfare might be different... I wouldn't know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
I really like the way you put forth suggestions that have been proven to not work and ask said "I'm not a lolbert but they have some good ideas" because you're a bitch baby retard
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
xwing posted:I wrote out a long-ish reply last night and ended up falling asleep before posting it. Oh well here it goes... Because it turns out that most people aren't actually scamming welfare and the myth that they are is some idiot libertarian bullshit namaste cocksucker
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Also lmao at education isn't a right, gently caress you tommy work in the coal mines if you want to learn to read
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
xwing posted:I do agree with the video that college is a great thing. Education is a key part of improving a society. I have had plenty of education myself... It however is not a right or mandate. Just because it's a good idea doesn't mean that we should always do it and the least intrusive means of making it happen is the government's job. We can argue over the details, but my default will always tend to be it's not the government's job and we can get things funded without reaching into collective pockets with taxes. Would you like to give some evidence for this point of view, in the form of even one thing that was ever accomplished by cutting taxes and scaling back the role of government?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:56 |
|
|
xwing posted:I think the government is pretty lovely at spending our money because there's no incentive to do it well or under budget if they can just tax more. What about in scenarios like Medicare, where they only have 2% overhead/waste compared to the potentially 20% overhead/profit of private insurance companies?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 15:06
|
|