Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

«‹›849 »

polymathy: Oct 19, 2019

Caros posted:

You have literally said, in this thread that you have never taken an IQ test, so how the gently caress would you know if your IQ is above average.

Also, hawkings was an amazing example given that when he was questioned on the topic, here was his reply:

"Above-average" is a pretty broad range. For the record, I completely agree with Hawking's sentiments about IQ, though I'll only point out that it's pretty easy for a widely-acknowledged genius to be humble when asked about his intelligence. In fact, responding in any other way would have been unseemly.

I wasn't bragging about my intelligence either, it was an off-hand comment. My assessment of "above-average" comes from my other cognitive assessments I've had over the years, including the SAT, my general grades in school and in comparison to the performance of my peers. It's not hard to estimate whether your general intelligence is above average.

For the record, I did go to a private high school on a scholarship that had entrance exams so the people who were actually accepted already were above the average and those were the people I was comparing my academic achievements with.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 10:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 15:42

NGDBSS: Dec 30, 2009

polymathy posted:

You do understand that there is no value judgement attached to IQ, right? People with lower IQ are not "parasites" who need to be "purged". There is absolutely no connection between these two concepts. Eugenics is a deliberate program of weeding out undesirable traits from the gene pool and enhancing desirable traits.

Your first mistake is here. Go and watch the video, Shaun goes through how IQ is an inherently flawed metric of "intelligence" and how the only thing it's vaguely good for is to measure education towards test-taking across whole populations. Claiming otherwise advances the malicious agenda of eugenics, even if you don't think it does. If you don't want to be used as a mouthpiece for eugenics, stop using this argument.

polymathy posted:

I have, in fact, read his book. Not recently, it was years ago. I've also watched many interviews he's given and some articles that he has written. Who the gently caress are you to know that I haven't read it?

DiLorenzo's "association", such as it is, with the league of the south is quite similar to the association that Tom Woods had with that group.

Your first mistake is here. DiLorenzo was part of the League of the South until at least the late aughts, by which time LotS had plenty of time to go full-on Lost Cause. These links took me ten minutes to find, jrod, I can find more than you could ever dream of if you continue to deny reality.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 11:02

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Also saying you are not making a value judgement about people based on their intelligence in the same breath as saying that their intelligence should be determinant on whether they have the right to autonomy over their own lives is loving wild. Because clearly that right is something you think is extremely valuable or you wouldn't keep asserting that you are part of the group that should have it.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 11:04

TLM3101: Sep 8, 2010

polymathy posted:

If people differ in so many ways, including intelligence, why should everyone get an equal vote in how things are run that are outside their competence?

polymathy posted:

None of this implies any of the ridiculous things you seem to attribute to me. It is a fair question.

I split these up just to make the inherent contraditction between these two statements even more glaringly obvious, you barely-ambulatory chicken-poo poo-stuffed hessian mannikin.

Your first sentence is the basic justification for any and all caste-systems: Some people just aren't competent to contribute. So for their own good, and to spare them the strain, we shouldn't bother them with anything beyond their competence.

All you've done is reword the justification for Jim Crow laws. And poorly, at that!

Which is why that rank, insidious, odious tripe about how "None of this implies..." is so disgustingly disingenuous, tacked on at the end to cover your rear end in the most pathetic way possible.

polymathy posted:

Look I'll see if I can spend a bit of time actually watching that video. Maybe it is as mind-blowing as I've been led to believe. However, this doesn't preclude you from actually responding as well.

C'mon. We both know you're going to do nothing of the sort.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 11:04

Rushputin: Jul 19, 2007; Intense, but quick to finish

I know "on the other hand, all of recorded history" has become a clich� in this thread, but this new (?) take of "actually inheritance is fine because only the worthy and smart will be able to retain this unfair advantage" might be my new favourite example.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 11:23

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Don't forget "and if that appears to be untrue it's the government's fault"

# ? Feb 15, 2021 11:27

polymathy: Oct 19, 2019

Caros posted:

Any. You posted the link without any critical thought. You loving dweeb.

This is a motte and bailey. No one is asking you to laboriously source your replies, we're asking you to do basic critical thinking, especially on a topic that you are unfamiliar with.

If I'm in a debate and I'm studied on a topic, I will (generally) refer to statistics that I'm familiar with without going back to triple check them. But if I'm making a new claim out of nowhere? I'll usually check two, three sources. One of my biggest critisisms with you is that you don't actually engage with the information you're seeking out to make points. You just search for something that agrees with you and call it a day.

It really saddens me that this is your takeaway from what I'm telling you. Your smoothass brain just skimmed over it and thought "Oh, I did a goof, I'll correct that and we'll continue the discussion", as if I was critiquing the actual number and not the thought process. Your problem is your thought process, Jrod, not your results. Remember in school, you'd do math and get one mark for having the answer, and a half dozen for doing the work. You always skip the work, and that is how you end up at the stupid, stupid positions you find yourself in.

Tesla probably had a pretty high IQ had he been tested. Doesn't seem like a particularly dumb man, so I'd be shocked if he was below average if nothing else.

As to the question of IQ in general? It is of dubious use imho. That shaun video (that you really should watch, it is actually super informative and entertaining and will give you useful arguments if you ever end up talking to libertarians who are of the more racist bent) goes into this at the beginning when it talks about how difficult it is to quantify general intelligence, because we can't even agree what intelligence is. Tesla was good at engineering, but I think we'd both agree that his IQ didn't help him succeed at business, yeah? So does IQ correspond to business accumen? Or no? What about me, I'm a pretty drat good novelist if I do say so myself, I'm drat sure I could write rings around Tesla, I'd even go so far as to say I'd probably be able to do that even if we'd grown up in similar circumstances, because I have a very strong inherent grasp of narrative structure. But I can't use a loving power tool, or understand a circuit to save my life.

There are so many things that fall into 'intelligence' that trying to quantify it into a number based on a standardized test seems... dubious.

Okay, I'm actually going to watch that video when I get a chance since nobody can seem to shut up about it.

I'm sorry if I've asked this question in the past, but I'm curious whether you earn money as a novelist or whether it's just a hobby? If not, what do you do for a living? I can actually see you having talent as a writer. You certainly don't have any trouble banging out lengthy posts, and they are usually well-written even when wrong. You've got an aptitude for cleverly-worded insults if nothing else.

Regarding the topic of IQ, there's a reason I don't discuss it much. I think you'll agree when looking at my post history that it's a topic that I rarely cover. I've seen alt-Right authors and people who I legitimately agree deserve the title "racist", "white supremacist" or even "eugenicist" and their obsession with IQ is incredibly creepy.

But I think there's a danger in ceding all discussion of IQ to these fringe and racist groups.

People should be allowed to research and discussion human intelligence and differences between people and groups openly and in a scholarly way. There is a lot of understandable concern about research of this sort leading to advocacy of eugenics or the re-emergence of "scientific racism" which obviously has a really dark history.

However, the flip side of this social taboo is that the only groups willing to talk about this subject are reprehensible groups who have a racist, anti-immigration or eugenics agenda.

Consider Charles Murray. I'm not the biggest fan of his, and I don't know the merits or demerits of his research on IQ, but I do think the appropriate response to him and people like him, if you think he's all wrong or is a racist or is promoting work that empowers racists, is to calmly debate him and point out the errors of his research.

The exactly opposite response is what happened at Middlebury where students just called him racist, Nazi, etc, and prevented him from speaking.

The way to dis-empower the racists is to calmly and openly discuss taboo topics about IQ, about race and other subjects in a scholarly and dispassionate way. The correct position is that IQ, although imperfect, is a useful measure of intelligence, human intelligence does seem to differ among humans, there do seem to be broad differences in traits and averages between groups included between races, but none of these facts matter much and certainly don't lend any support whatsoever to any racist, white supremacist or eugenics program.

The correct position is always to treat everybody as an individual and not a member of a group.

Putting aside IQ, do you not think there is any validity to any measurement of intelligence? Of course there are different kinds of intelligence, and no standardized test is going to encapsulate all of them. I agree with that, but if human intelligence, meaning all different kinds of intelligence, differs between people, then surely trying to measure it however imperfectly, seems like a worthy goal.

It seems to me that you're objecting more to IQ tests being interpreted too broadly or made out to be more significant and important than they really are, rather than IQ not having any utility whatsoever.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 11:31

Osmosisch: Sep 9, 2007; I shall make everyone look like me! Then when they trick each other, they will say "oh that Coyote, he is the smartest one, he can even trick the great Coyote."; Grimey Drawer

polymathy posted:

Okay, I'm actually going to watch that video when I get a chance since nobody can seem to shut up about it.

I'm sorry if I've asked this question in the past, but I'm curious whether you earn money as a novelist or whether it's just a hobby? If not, what do you do for a living? I can actually see you having talent as a writer. You certainly don't have any trouble banging out lengthy posts, and they are usually well-written even when wrong. You've got an aptitude for cleverly-worded insults if nothing else.

Regarding the topic of IQ, there's a reason I don't discuss it much. I think you'll agree when looking at my post history that it's a topic that I rarely cover. I've seen alt-Right authors and people who I legitimately agree deserve the title "racist", "white supremacist" or even "eugenicist" and their obsession with IQ is incredibly creepy.

But I think there's a danger in ceding all discussion of IQ to these fringe and racist groups.

People should be allowed to research and discussion human intelligence and differences between people and groups openly and in a scholarly way. There is a lot of understandable concern about research of this sort leading to advocacy of eugenics or the re-emergence of "scientific racism" which obviously has a really dark history.

However, the flip side of this social taboo is that the only groups willing to talk about this subject are reprehensible groups who have a racist, anti-immigration or eugenics agenda.

Consider Charles Murray. I'm not the biggest fan of his, and I don't know the merits or demerits of his research on IQ, but I do think the appropriate response to him and people like him, if you think he's all wrong or is a racist or is promoting work that empowers racists, is to calmly debate him and point out the errors of his research.

The exactly opposite response is what happened at Middlebury where students just called him racist, Nazi, etc, and prevented him from speaking.

The way to dis-empower the racists is to calmly and openly discuss taboo topics about IQ, about race and other subjects in a scholarly and dispassionate way. The correct position is that IQ, although imperfect, is a useful measure of intelligence, human intelligence does seem to differ among humans, there do seem to be broad differences in traits and averages between groups included between races, but none of these facts matter much and certainly don't lend any support whatsoever to any racist, white supremacist or eugenics program.

The correct position is always to treat everybody as an individual and not a member of a group.

Putting aside IQ, do you not think there is any validity to any measurement of intelligence? Of course there are different kinds of intelligence, and no standardized test is going to encapsulate all of them. I agree with that, but if human intelligence, meaning all different kinds of intelligence, differs between people, then surely trying to measure it however imperfectly, seems like a worthy goal.

It seems to me that you're objecting more to IQ tests being interpreted too broadly or made out to be more significant and important than they really are, rather than IQ not having any utility whatsoever.

All these points are addressed in the video, fyi.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 11:37

polymathy: Oct 19, 2019

Caros posted:

Sort of a quick question on this last one, but do you consider democracy to be good? Just in general I mean. I know you don't like states, but in an imperfect world where we have them, do you think a democratic system is better than an autocratic one?

To me the question is simple, of course I do. I believe that people should have a say in their material conditions, that if you are going to be subject to societal conditions (property, laws, social norms etc) you should be allowed to have a voice in them. I believe this very strongly on the societal level, one person or a small group of people should not be dictating the conditions of my life to me, or to others without any form of recourse. It is why I don't like monarchy, or dictatorships, or oligarchies, and why I push for an expansion of democratic rights and responsibilities.

So why the gently caress wouldn't I push for that in the workplace? People spend nearly a third of their time at a workplace, and in a market or capitalist society, the vast majority of people are going to have to work for a business, rather than working for themselves. If I'm opposed to a system where individuals can control the lives of others in a governmental sense, of course I'd be opposed to them doing so in an economic sense.

Your talk about 'reducing the ability of gifted individuals to excel' is very randian, in a frankly disgusting way. I want people to be able to succeed according to their abilities, of course, but the idea that we have to give up democratic control of our workplaces in order to give a comparative elite the ability to jerk just a little more money out of us? Nah, gently caress off with that poo poo.

"Democracy" has no inherent moral character to it. It just means that majority opinion rules. I don't consider this to necessarily be a good thing.

Of course I'm also opposed to autocracy, but you seem to think the preference for democracy over autocracy is an easy one. I'm not sure it's that easy actually.

If the government is implementing immoral policies, why does it make the situation better if those immoral policies were supported democratically?

If a law is passed that every person caught with a small amount of marijuana gets the death penalty, is it more immoral if such draconian laws are enacted by a dictator or by a democratic vote? No, the action is the same. It's clearly an atrocious violation of individual liberty.

As much as you may not like to hear it, I am somewhat persuaded by Hoppe's argument that the historical shift from monarchies to democracies might not have necessarily been an improvement. At least it's a much more debatable point than is usually presumed.

I think it's important to develop a class consciousness among the people about the nature of State power. Marxists like to talk about class consciousness in relation to the Capitalists, but it's equally important to develop class consciousness around the State.

The State, meaning the politicians, bankers, cronies, military and police make up the Ruling Class, the Exploiters. All regular people who are not a part of the Ruling Class, are the exploited. This includes all workers not employed by the State and all honest businessmen who aren't Crony Capitalists who profit from their relationship with the State.

When you have a dictatorship or monarchy, it's crystal clear who is the exploited and who is the exploiter. The government works for the benefit of a tyrant at the top and the masses are exploited by him. It's easy to get people to clearly see this dynamic and generating anti-State sentiment is easy. A common class interest is easy to identify among the masses.

In democracy, everything get's confused. Resistance to the State weakens because everyone thinks they have some say in how their government is run, even though their vote is a mere formality.

In reality the masses are exploited as much or more than under monarchy, but they don't resist because the class consciousness among the exploited masses is systematically weakened due to propaganda about "consent by the governed".

This mythology around democracy allows the Ruling Class to exploit the masses more than ever because the fairy tale around democracy gives the State what it craves the most, which is a sense of legitimacy and righteousness.

So, no, I'm not convinced that democracy is necessarily between that autocracy.

As far as democracy in the workplace is concerned, what you should really be saying is that you prefer the ability to have a democratic voice in your workplace. I can respect your preference. But what right do you have to make that decision for everyone else?

Many workers don't want the hassle of having any input on any goddamn thing about how their workplace is run. They just want to clock in and clock out, get a steady paycheck, go to the bar with their buddies and watch the big game on Sunday.

If I understand your position correctly, you're going to deny these workers that right. You won't permit free people to agree to economic arrangements that violate your personal preferences.

That seems pretty egotistical.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 12:02

Car Hater: May 7, 2007; wolf. bike.
Wolf. Bike.
Wolf! Bike!
WolfBike!
WolfBike!
ARROOOOOO!

Libertarian dude, you're not a full human. I will agree that you're probably pretty smart, but you have fallen for an ideology and you allow it to do your thinking for you, in effect you have no personhood. You have my condolences, but if I had the capacity I would definitely limit you from having any input on society beyond simple manual labor.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 12:05

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

polymathy posted:

Yes...

But wealth is not some stagnant thing that perpetually exists. For wealth to persist over generations one either has to continue to do productive work in order to maintain or grow that wealth, or else cozy up to politicians and central bankers in order to maintain your wealth through theft.

What often happens, in a situation where a fortune was gained legitimately through hard work, is that an individual who has rare talents, a tremendous work ethic, or some combination of gifts and a bit of good luck, happens to move up from either poverty or the middle class into the upper echelon of society.

Now, his children end up growing up with silver spoons in their mouths, and this often produces a lack of work ethic and discipline. There's also the phenomenon of the "regression to the mean" whereby the offspring of unusually intelligent people are often closer to average intelligence.

So, they may well inherit their parents wealth or the family business, but without the same abilities and skill in the line of work they are inheriting, they'll often eventually deplete their fortune, making bad investments or mismanaging their assets and eventually fall back down to middle class.

So inheriting wealth doesn't seem to me to be a big problem in a free society.

Now, in situations where families maintain wealth generation after generation, you'll almost always find that they are cronies who buy off politicians and live off of theft instead of productive work.

It's actually significantly easier to gain more wealth when you already have it than to lose a large fortune. This assumption is a weird, romantic ideal where it requires real skill to retain ownership of assets, where in fact it does not. Your society is built on completely unchecked power of property-owners, who dominate all aspects of life. That is libertarianism. An oligarchy of property owners with no input from anyone else.

The idea of markets as a fair thing is absolutely ridiculous because markets are most responsive to those who have the most property, further enhancing the power of the propertied classes.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 12:06

polymathy: Oct 19, 2019

Karia posted:

Thank you for sharing. That's actually a pretty good, well-written article! Kudos to Harry Browne for putting that out so fast. Just looking at his wikipedia history, it seems like he was at Bikini Atoll for the Castle Bravo test? Jesus, yeah, that's the sort of thing that'll make a life-long pacifist out of you. Talk about existential horror.

I'm going to bed now, but it looks like the Internet Archive's got a copy of his book Why Government Doesn't Work available for loan. Have you read it? Do you consider it formative for you? If so I may dig into that to get a better idea of your influences.

I have read Why Government Doesn't Work, but it's been a long time. He was definitely an influence on me.

I also want to make the point that the casual observer of this thread might be led to believe that libertarians are really just a bunch of paleo-conservatives, closet racists and generally deplorable, disreputable people. This is an unfortunate, and entirely inaccurate, portrayal of libertarianism. People just seem to want to talk about the Ron Paul Newsletters, or Lew Rockwell, or Hans Hoppe or Tom DiLorenzo or this or that person's past association with the League of the South.

Although I don't agree with the characterizations of these people, I think it's important to point out that the so-called "right-libertarians" really comprise a very small portion of the broader libertarian movement. In actuality, there are huge areas of agreement between libertarians and Leftists.

Just like you were probably surprised by that Harry Browne article, there's a lot of libertarian literature that would likely make you reassess your preconceived notions about what we believe.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 12:26

polymathy: Oct 19, 2019

QuarkJets posted:

This is technically accurate, but in the opposite way than how you think it is. The kind of history that you learn in public school generally hides the parts that make capitalism look bad. You seem to believe many of those same widely-accepted mythologies, so I doubt that your history education was all that different.

This is incongruous because the Democrats were largely opposed to the Iraq War. And when places like Pew poll self-identifying libertarians, their views on foreign policy tend to not be any different than the average American's (e.g. a great many libertarians were in favor of the Iraq War), whereas Democratic Socialists tend to be more anti-war than average.

So from what you're writing here it seems like you became a libertarian primarily because that's what you were exposed to the most when you were looking for an anti-war ideology. You accepted their theories and explanations about how the world works because you had no other lens through which to view them.

This is basically what people criticize you for in this thread: accepting and doling out libertarian theories without performing any critical analysis of them. This is an admission that you've been doing this your entire adult life. That's... just really sad

This is an incredibly disingenuous response.

I said that the first thing that turned me on to libertarian ideas were the anti-war arguments I was hearing from them. I did NOT accept the economic arguments right away but became slowly convinced over several years and a lot of reading. How exactly does this translate into not "performing any critical analysis"? I explicitly did the exact opposite.

As for foreign policy, yes the Democrats said they opposed the Iraq War at the time which is why I would have leaned Democratic in those days. The point was that once I was exposed to the libertarian anti-war and anti-imperialism arguments I could see just how weak the Democrats supposed anti-war views really were in comparison.

I don't know what Pew poll you're referring to, but I don't know what that has to do with me. If some poll claims that a large percentage of self-identified libertarians supported the Iraq War, then they're not very good libertarians.

All the libertarian intellectuals and famous figures, from Harry Browne to Ron Paul, Antiwar.com, Lewrockwell.com, The Mises Institute, Robert Higgs, Scott Horton and pretty much everyone else was against the Iraq War from the beginning.

Yes I'm sure the Democratic Socialists were also quite good in those days but I wasn't reading them at the time. If I did, I might have been convinced to join their cause.

I know Noam Chomsky was loving on point as he always is.

But I feel pretty confident that the libertarian economic arguments would have eventually won me over.

These days I read a lot of their material. I read Jacobin Magazine, the World Socialist Website, the Grayzone and a few others. I love their anti-war stuff and their pro-civil liberties stuff, and a few others, but strongly disagree with their economics.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 12:45

Alhazred: Feb 16, 2011

polymathy posted:

Many workers don't want the hassle of having any input on any goddamn thing about how their workplace is run.

Yes, they do. They want to have an input on how much they are paid, how many hours they work, what their tasks is, if their working conditions are safe and so on. People are not mindless drones.

Alhazred fucked around with this message at 12:52 on Feb 15, 2021

# ? Feb 15, 2021 12:50

hooman: Oct 11, 2007; This guy seems legit.; Fun Shoe

polymathy posted:

I also want to make the point that the casual observer of this thread might be led to believe that libertarians are really just a bunch of paleo-conservatives, closet racists and generally deplorable, disreputable people. This is an unfortunate, and entirely accurate, portrayal of libertarianism.

Fixed that for you.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 12:51

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

polymathy posted:

Now, in situations where families maintain wealth generation after generation, you'll almost always find that they are cronies who buy off politicians and live off of theft instead of productive work.

And yet you want the police and the courts and the law to be explicitly for sale...

# ? Feb 15, 2021 14:51

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

polymathy posted:

Many workers don't want the hassle of having any input on any goddamn thing about how their workplace is run. They just want to clock in and clock out, get a steady paycheck, go to the bar with their buddies and watch the big game on Sunday.

If I understand your position correctly, you're going to deny these workers that right. You won't permit free people to agree to economic arrangements that violate your personal preferences.

That seems pretty egotistical.

polymathy posted:

I also want to make the point that the casual observer of this thread might be led to believe that libertarians are really just a bunch of paleo-conservatives, closet racists and generally deplorable, disreputable people.

The casual observer is entirely correct.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 15:23

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

polymathy posted:

As far as democracy in the workplace is concerned, what you should really be saying is that you prefer the ability to have a democratic voice in your workplace. I can respect your preference. But what right do you have to make that decision for everyone else?

Many workers don't want the hassle of having any input on any goddamn thing about how their workplace is run. They just want to clock in and clock out, get a steady paycheck, go to the bar with their buddies and watch the big game on Sunday.

If I understand your position correctly, you're going to deny these workers that right. You won't permit free people to agree to economic arrangements that violate your personal preferences.

That seems pretty egotistical.

What right exactly is being denied in this scenario? Will the big game be cancelled?

# ? Feb 15, 2021 15:34

Panfilo: Aug 27, 2011; EXISTENCE IS PAIN😬

Polymathy do you feel that Disney was well within their right to fire Gina Carano for stuff she tweeted? Do you believe Disney was making a pragmatic choice in the matter, or do you think they were capitulating to pressure from 'the mob' who wanted her fired?

Because I've observed your fellow Libertarians flip on this issue, and it's kind of bizarre. They suddenly think it's unacceptable for someone to get 'canceled' for their political views, that it is anti liberty. It also kind of brings to question the true degree of coercion in a libertarian's mind; somehow "work for these unacceptably low wages or starve" isn't coercion, but "keep your partisan opinions to yourself or you're fired" is. :psyduck:

# ? Feb 15, 2021 15:54

Ratoslov: Feb 15, 2012; Now prepare yourselves! You're the guests of honor at the Greatest Kung Fu Cannibal BBQ Ever!

VitalSigns posted:

And yet you want the police and the courts and the law to be explicitly for sale...

The free market, in it's majestic equality, permits both the rich as well as the poor to purchase judgements and punishment against their enemies.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 16:03

BalloonFish: Jun 30, 2013; Fun Shoe

bitterandtwisted posted:

What right exactly is being denied in this scenario? Will the big game be cancelled?

And which dystopia should we be worried about? Workers apathetically ignoring workplace democracy because they're simple blue-collar Joes who just want to have a beer and watch the game?* Or workers enviously working in lockstep via internal democracy to thwart the bold innovations of the great ideas people?

* Again, I wonder how many 'ordinary workers' polymathy has actually known or worked with. Because casting them as drones who just want to clock in and out in return for a cheque doesn't really hold up. Even many of the ones who say they don't care will then go to a bar to watch The Game and knock back Some Beers while having a good moan about how they're not paid enough, worked too hard and their manager is a useless idiot who doesn't understand how things actually work.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 16:25

Venomous: Nov 7, 2011

hey thanks to rushputin for reminding me that this thread (and therefore jrod) exists

so jrod, it's been a while. hosed any watermelons lately

# ? Feb 15, 2021 16:51

JustJeff88: Jan 15, 2008; I AM
CONSISTENTLY
ANNOYING
...
JUST TERRIBLE

THIS BADGE OF SHAME IS WORTH 0.45 DOUBLE DRAGON ADVANCES

of SA-Mart forever

Car Hater posted:

if I had the capacity I would definitely limit you from having any input on society beyond simple manual labor.

if I had the capacity I would definitely limit it from having any oxygen, but that would violate the NAP.

Dirk the Average posted:

The casual observer is entirely correct.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 17:56

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

The democratic State is bad because it initiates force and imposes authoritarian control on your life and tells you what to do and overrules your best judgment.

Also have you guys considered that autocracy, absolute monarchy, divine right of kings, landed nobility, and feudal lord-vassal-serf relationships are better than democracy because they overrule the best judgment of the incompetent underintelligent commoner, tell the peasants what to do so they don't choose wrong, and organize society along efficient lines of authoritarian control? It's better for everyone if the burdens of choice and control are placed into the hands of the divinely appointed few who alone have the training and innate ability to wield them.

Furthermore as an antiwar libertarian, I am attracted to autocracy's long established historical record of peaceful international relations and opposition to insane wars over land, prestige, family ties, religious quarrels, and succession disputes.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Feb 15, 2021

# ? Feb 15, 2021 18:45

Elephant Ambush: Nov 13, 2012; ...We sholde spenden more time together. What sayest thou?; Nap Ghost

Gaming the system without technically breaking its rules in order to amass obscene wealth for yourself is just as immoral/unethical and in some cases worse than going to war over resources

# ? Feb 15, 2021 18:53

Caros: May 14, 2008

polymathy posted:

Okay, I'm actually going to watch that video when I get a chance since nobody can seem to shut up about it.

I'm sorry if I've asked this question in the past, but I'm curious whether you earn money as a novelist or whether it's just a hobby? If not, what do you do for a living? I can actually see you having talent as a writer. You certainly don't have any trouble banging out lengthy posts, and they are usually well-written even when wrong. You've got an aptitude for cleverly-worded insults if nothing else.

Yup, not gonna dox myself but I pull six figures between various pen names. Started with smut writing during the early amazon craze then started doing nerd sci-fi

quote:

Consider Charles Murray. I'm not the biggest fan of his, and I don't know the merits or demerits of his research on IQ, but I do think the appropriate response to him and people like him, if you think he's all wrong or is a racist or is promoting work that empowers racists, is to calmly debate him and point out the errors of his research.

The exactly opposite response is what happened at Middlebury where students just called him racist, Nazi, etc, and prevented him from speaking.

This happened in 2017. The bell curve was published in 1994. There are well over a dozen scholarly refutations of his 'research', and he has been an intellectual pariah among basically anyone who knows what they are talking about for well over a decade.

But look at that, he's still getting speaking gigs to spew his same debunked nonsense as if it were a fact. Weird.

Consider Andrew Wakefield. His study on Autism and vaccines killed people. Hundreds, probably thousands if you actually break down the numbers. He created fake research to create fear about vaccines, almost certainly to sell his own vaccine, and to this day we still have presidents and congress critters arguing that maybe there is a link between vaccines and autism, who knows? And hey, here was Paul Ryan as speaker of the house talking about how great Murray's work on 'the inner cities' really was.

We like to think that the solution to a bad idea is a good idea, but that isn't actually true on an individual level. Yes, providing mountains of evidence that vaccines don't cause autism has curbed the worst of it, and showing the bell curve is horseshit means that less people buy into it, but at a certain point you've convinced everyone you are going to convince, and the best you can do is to call a spade a spade.

And Murray? He is a spade.

quote:

Putting aside IQ, do you not think there is any validity to any measurement of intelligence? Of course there are different kinds of intelligence, and no standardized test is going to encapsulate all of them. I agree with that, but if human intelligence, meaning all different kinds of intelligence, differs between people, then surely trying to measure it however imperfectly, seems like a worthy goal.

It seems to me that you're objecting more to IQ tests being interpreted too broadly or made out to be more significant and important than they really are, rather than IQ not having any utility whatsoever.

I addressed this in a different post that I don't think you got to, but no, I don't find any real value in IQ tests. While I'd pretty much have to agree (as anyone would) that there is some level of diversity among humans, I don't think we've come up with a test even remotely useful in trying to categorize everything that could fall into the realm of general intelligence. Even if we did, I don't really see the point in it, beyond something that people can use to jerk themselves off and bigots can use to try and push the same old eugenics poo poo.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 19:04

Grace Baiting: Jul 20, 2012; Audi famam illius;
Cucurrit quaeque
Tetigit destruens.

polymathy posted:

Yeah...

Look, the most pointless thing that I could do would be to brag about my intelligence or any other aspect of my life on an anonymous internet forum. It's inherently unverifiable and you'd be perfectly right to roll your eyes at claims I make, the same way I do when any of you make claims about your private life.

i feel a great disturbance in the force of my confidence that you, jrod, are a stunningly handsome man who could seduce any number of us posters, using naught but a glance and winning smile. it is as if millions of watermelons cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. i fear something terrible has happened

# ? Feb 15, 2021 19:07

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

polymathy posted:

High IQ people with low moral character are the type of people who tend to gain control of the most structural power.

It's usually not the politicians who have the high IQs. They certainly have low moral character, but it's usually the power centers who finance the politicians who are highly intelligent.

Consider Bill Clinton. Not too bright, and certainly lacking in moral character. Now consider Henry Kissinger, a brilliant man who also happens to be a war criminal. He's the type of dangerous intelligent person that I'm concerned about.

I believe that a good-hearted simple person with an IQ of 90 has far more human worth and dignity that someone like Kissinger who uses his intelligence to commit war crimes.

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar who got a JD from Yale. Is he more intelligent than you?

# ? Feb 15, 2021 19:07

Billy Gnosis: May 18, 2006; Now is the time for us to gather together and celebrate those things that we like and think are fun.

Antifa Turkeesian posted:

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar who got a JD from Yale. Is he more intelligent than you?

We aren't talking demonstrations of talent or intelligence or accomplishments. we are talking about unimpeachable tests that say he's a dum dum :smuggo:

if he was smart he would have still bragged about sat scores years after he fact and sold pirated blurays

Edit: I'm not a fascist but people I don't like are undesirable dumb people. It's just a fact

Billy Gnosis fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Feb 15, 2021

# ? Feb 15, 2021 19:14

Halloween Jack: Sep 12, 2003; I WILL CUT OFF BOTH OF MY ARMS BEFORE I VOTE FOR ANYONE THAT IS MORE POPULAR THAN BERNIE!!!!!

polymathy posted:

Are you claiming that the only valid scientific method is empiricism?

There isn't any other scientific method. That isn't a claim, it's the dictionary definition of the scientific method.

quote:

Do you not understand that the social sciences are profoundly different from hard sciences like physics and chemistry?

A central tenet of the empiricist scientific method is that propositions be tested, that the test is repeatable and that all variables can be sufficiently controlled.

This is fine when testing physics hypotheses in a lab, but this method is wholly insufficient when dealing with humans interacting in a dynamic economy. The knowledge and subjective value in a person's head determines their actions and those actions are not going to be the same when they know they are subject to observation in a controlled environment.

So praxeology is self-contradicting and invalid. Thanks for that.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 19:24

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

polymathy posted:

Yes...

But wealth is not some stagnant thing that perpetually exists. For wealth to persist over generations one either has to continue to do productive work in order to maintain or grow that wealth, or else cozy up to politicians and central bankers in order to maintain your wealth through theft.

So inheriting wealth doesn't seem to me to be a big problem in a free society.

Now, in situations where families maintain wealth generation after generation, you'll almost always find that they are cronies who buy off politicians and live off of theft instead of productive work.

Can you prove this? If the sum of money is large enough, it's basically impossible to spend down. There are also people who can be hired to help fortunes grow through investment, so no direct involvement from their owners is necessary. It's much more common for inherited fortunes to grow and for wealth to become more heavily concentrated among fewer people, as you can easily see through a survey of a list of the wealthiest humans on the planet Earth and a review of where their wealth comes from.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 19:26

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Billy Gnosis posted:

We are talking demonstrations of talent or intelligence or accomplishments. we are talking about unimpeachable tests that say he's a dum dum if he was smart he would have still bragged about sat scores years after he fact and sold pirated blurays

Edit: I'm not a fascist but people I don't like are undesirable dumb people. It's just a fact

I wonder if jrod would consent to take the LSAT or a practice LSAT at the same time that I do. We could then compare both scores with the average accepted applicant profile for Yale law in 2021.

In fact, anyone who wants could try. What do you say, thread?

# ? Feb 15, 2021 19:28

tigersklaw: May 8, 2008

Antifa Turkeesian posted:

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar who got a JD from Yale. Is he more intelligent than you?

Can we get an answer about this JRod? Clinton isn�t too bright while being a Rhodes Scholar who went to Yale, but you�re above average IQ because you went to a private school and took the SATs and AP test?

# ? Feb 15, 2021 19:55

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Clinton's BS is from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, to which he was admitted directly and which has an acceptance rate of 14%, so presumably he had a good SAT score too. However, he did not do any AP exams while I did five, so I am forced to conclude that I was the superior student.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 20:05

Golbez: Oct 9, 2002; 1 2 3!
If you want to take a shot at me get in line, line
1 2 3!
Baby, I've had all my shots and I'm fine

polymathy posted:

If a law is passed that every person caught with a small amount of marijuana gets the death penalty, is it more immoral if such draconian laws are enacted by a dictator or by a democratic vote? No, the action is the same. It's clearly an atrocious violation of individual liberty.

But if a landlord makes a rule that every person caught with a small amount of marijuana on his property gets the death penalty, is that still an atrocious violation of individual liberty, or, as Hoppe and Walter Block would argue, a celebration of it?

Edit: To wit,

Walter Block posted:

... it is entirely possible that some areas of the country, parts of Gotham and San Francisco for example, will require this practice, and ban, entirely, heterosexuality. If this is done through contract, private property rights, restrictive covenants, it will be entirely compatible with the libertarian legal code.

Golbez fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Feb 15, 2021

# ? Feb 15, 2021 20:35

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Liberty is when your landlord exercises his contractual right to bust in with a flashlight to make sure you aren't sticking your wiener in the wrong hoohoo

E: wait poo poo, how much of Libertarianism is little duplex small-lords dreaming of getting to reinstate the landowner's right of prima nocta

# ? Feb 15, 2021 21:31

Golbez: Oct 9, 2002; 1 2 3!
If you want to take a shot at me get in line, line
1 2 3!
Baby, I've had all my shots and I'm fine

VitalSigns posted:

Liberty is when your landlord exercises his contractual right to bust in with a flashlight to make sure you aren't sticking your wiener in the wrong hoohoo

E: wait poo poo, how much of Libertarianism is little duplex small-lords dreaming of getting to reinstate the landowner's right of prima nocta

hey if you don't want that, don't live there. They never explain why that's different from a government, though.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 21:38

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

polymathy posted:

For future reference, here's how you can tell whether someone is a racist: You can find a clip of them saying something racist, or an article they wrote that you can verify they actually wrote with racist views expressed.

Oh noooooo, jrod, you've made a terrible mistake here D: You've given us an actual concrete thing we can do to discretely confirm someone is a racist!

Never mind that a) when we do this you will inevitably find reasons to say why it wasn't actually racist, and b) that is not the only way people can be racist you overripe nectarine, holy poo poo, it's like you never heard the famous quote from Lee Atwater, very rarely do people with racist motivations say them word-for-word in modern society because we've decided that behavior is poo poo, and even allowing for the fact that many people are not intentionally racist, systems still very much are.

polymathy posted:

Yes...

But wealth is not some stagnant thing that perpetually exists. For wealth to persist over generations one either has to continue to do productive work in order to maintain or grow that wealth, or else cozy up to politicians and central bankers in order to maintain your wealth through theft.

What often happens, in a situation where a fortune was gained legitimately through hard work, is that an individual who has rare talents, a tremendous work ethic, or some combination of gifts and a bit of good luck, happens to move up from either poverty or the middle class into the upper echelon of society.

Now, his children end up growing up with silver spoons in their mouths, and this often produces a lack of work ethic and discipline. There's also the phenomenon of the "regression to the mean" whereby the offspring of unusually intelligent people are often closer to average intelligence.

So, they may well inherit their parents wealth or the family business, but without the same abilities and skill in the line of work they are inheriting, they'll often eventually deplete their fortune, making bad investments or mismanaging their assets and eventually fall back down to middle class.

So inheriting wealth doesn't seem to me to be a big problem in a free society.

Now, in situations where families maintain wealth generation after generation, you'll almost always find that they are cronies who buy off politicians and live off of theft instead of productive work.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH GOD MY SIDES I'M DYING

This is, to me, the single most utterly farcical thing you've ever written on these forums. This is so utterly, obviously, evidently untrue that I seriously must wonder if you've suffered some sort of brain hemorrhage and are literally incapable of rational thought. This is so ludicrous it's obscene, so monstrously detached from actual observable reality that I lack words to properly expressed how staggeringly stupid this is. I'm genuinely in a sort of awe. And it's the whole of what you wrote here, not just the bolded part. This is just...aaaaaaaaagggggghhhhhhhhhh.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 21:39

Halloween Jack: Sep 12, 2003; I WILL CUT OFF BOTH OF MY ARMS BEFORE I VOTE FOR ANYONE THAT IS MORE POPULAR THAN BERNIE!!!!!

polymathy posted:

For wealth to persist over generations one either has to continue to do productive work in order to maintain or grow that wealth,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqhXEm62jZg

# ? Feb 15, 2021 21:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 15:42

Caros: May 14, 2008

polymathy posted:

In reality the masses are exploited as much or more than under monarchy, but they don't resist because the class consciousness among the exploited masses is systematically weakened due to propaganda about "consent by the governed".

This mythology around democracy allows the Ruling Class to exploit the masses more than ever because the fairy tale around democracy gives the State what it craves the most, which is a sense of legitimacy and righteousness.

So, no, I'm not convinced that democracy is necessarily between that autocracy.

Normally I'd go line by line, as I am ought to, but this is some grade A what the gently caress nonsense. To argue that people living in a democracy are more exploited by their democratically elected government than by the divine right of kings? Are you loving serious Jrod? Are you really so far up your own rear end? Democracy is imperfect, but you're seriously making the argument that the people of america are more exploited by their government than, say, the people of Saudi Arabia.

How do I even go about addressing this, it is so asinine that I can't even...

quote:

As far as democracy in the workplace is concerned, what you should really be saying is that you prefer the ability to have a democratic voice in your workplace. I can respect your preference. But what right do you have to make that decision for everyone else?

Many workers don't want the hassle of having any input on any goddamn thing about how their workplace is run. They just want to clock in and clock out, get a steady paycheck, go to the bar with their buddies and watch the big game on Sunday.

gently caress off with this. If you asked 100 people whether or not they'd like to have input on how their jobs are run, or if they want to just do what their boss tells them, I can't imagine a loving world where the overwhelming majority don't want their voices to be heard. Hours, pay, benefits, vacation, safety concerns, practical concerns. Literally anyone who works would like to have some say in how their job is run.

You want a simple example? Stools at check outs.

I worked for years in retail, and every job I worked had some rear end backward explanation for why you weren't allowed to sit down while you were working, but basically all of them boiled down to some business guru in the 60's telling business owners that it would increase their profitability by 0.00001% if their workers were on their feet for the whole shift.

In a democratic workplace? People loving sit down, because they aren't being lorded over by the guy with all the monah. People spend years of their lives in the workplace, and you're genuinely trying to tell me that they wouldn't want to be able to have their voice heard? gently caress. Off.

quote:

If I understand your position correctly, you're going to deny these workers that right. You won't permit free people to agree to economic arrangements that violate your personal preferences.

That seems pretty egotistical.

This is the same "I want to be able to choose my healthcare bullshit."

No one chooses to be denied a basic say in their working conditions. That 'choice' is forced on them by the nature of the economic system they were born into. If you're born into a system where all the land is owned and all the essentials required for life are part of that economic system your choice is to engage, or starve.

# ? Feb 15, 2021 23:08

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

«‹›849 »