|
Who What Now posted:I think you should. I'd love to listen a podcast of yours at work. I've still got to get out the one where me and dickeye talked about comics for four hours, but I had an idea for one in the hopefully near future, depending on how work goes. In March at the latest. It'd basically be a Show and Tell where everyone participating visits some lovely libertarian corner of the internet and shares their "favorite" content from it. Your Mises.coms, LewRockwell.coms, basically anything Jrod and people like him are likely to link to when making an internet argument. Or we could do some live exploration of a couple particular places, as one of the statist sheeple, I'm open to suggestions.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Mincome is actually approaching acceptability in some areas and could be achieved. I don't even know what a maximum income would be. Surely you achieve a sort of soft cap if you have a high end bracket with a very high tax rate; at a certain point they'll take their pay in other things or reinvest the money. Plus a maximum income (and I haven't heard any arguments for a formal one) might well be a far, far harder sell politically than a minimum income.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:I want to, but I'm crazy busy this Sunday. same, got work then dogs then wrasslin next sunday on the other hand
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I've still got to get out the one where me and dickeye talked about comics for four hours, but I had an idea for one in the hopefully near future, depending on how work goes. In March at the latest. i like the idea of doing a livestream of us exploring bad poo poo, the best parts of the first two were people looking up weird poo poo and reading it as it became relevant dog dick coffee table dot com
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
You... you guys did WHAT?! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:You... you guys did WHAT?! Gay sex mostly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZvUMmDF0I4 Also talking, but mostly gay sex very communist
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Gay sex mostly. this is the one where i show up halfway in and forget to turn my mic on the other one is the one with dog dick coffee table dot com
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:this is the one where i show up halfway in and forget to turn my mic on dog dick coffee table dot com is everywhere, if you believe hard enough
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Gay sex mostly. Oh, wow. I guess JRod is good for something!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:dog dick coffee table dot com is everywhere, if you believe hard enough i think you'll find that dog dick coffee table dot com was inside you, all along
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Oh, wow. These guys made a second video that was mostly them talking about the shitshow that is bitcoin, which was somewhat more interesting because there's so much weird content there but also some incorrect things were said, too
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:These guys made a second video that was mostly them talking about the shitshow that is bitcoin, which was somewhat more interesting because there's so much weird content there but also some incorrect things were said, too Is there a transcript? Because there's no way I'm spending hours listening to either of them, I'm not really a radio person.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Is there a transcript? Because there's no way I'm spending hours listening to either of them, I'm not really a radio person. Try creating a smart contract on the blockchain, if you offer enough of a bounty then there's probably some plucky appliance out there that will accept your bitcoins and create a transcript of the chat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Mincome is actually approaching acceptability in some areas and could be achieved. I don't even know what a maximum income would be. Surely you achieve a sort of soft cap if you have a high end bracket with a very high tax rate; at a certain point they'll take their pay in other things or reinvest the money. That was actually the entire point of things like a 90% top marginal tax rate, really. The reason those sorts of things, and even an overall hard salary cap, is because of that "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" quote. Enough Americans believe that if they work real hard and want it bad enough they'll be billionaires some day and don't want to share the wealth that they earned. Ignoring that almost nobody is a self-made billionaire. No, I take that back; absolutely nobody is a self-made billionaire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
With jrode probated and this thread about to be closed, I was thinking on someone's reflection that jrode's arguments are naïvely iterative - when he linked that top ten states and 2 of them had slavery he just goes "oops, here's another one" - no necessary reflection on what it meant that he defended two slave states in the name of libertarianism. It made me think about John Searle's Chinese room thought experiment, you know, the one where a woman is locked inside a room where her only contact with the outside world is pieces of paper being slipped under the door. They contain Chinese characters, and behind here is a shelf full of Chinese textbooks. She looks up the characters and eventually finds the ones that correspond to the ones on the paper, and the book appears to provide a standard response, so she writes down the standard response and slides the piece of paper back under the door. On the other side of this door is a native Chinese speaker who then receives what appears to be the words of another Chinese speaker who's responding to them, perhaps stiffly, and with poor handwriting, but making sense. So they write back another reply, and the woman in the room looks it up and writes back something that satisfies the person outside the room as valid Chinese, and this continues on and on. The experiment was asking 'does the woman in the room actually understand Chinese, or is she simulating understanding without actually being aware about what she was writing. And of course most of us would argue it's the latter. jrode's argument style, wherein he responds to specific criticisms of his words with often unrelated screeds, reminds me of the simulations of Chinese from the thought experiment. Simulated logic, no understanding of what he's talking about. Like a libertarianism AI construct programmed to respond to our input with the best look-up methods it can manage. But then he challenged Dickeye to a fist fight and pussied out when it was accepted, so never mind
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:But then he challenged Dickeye to a fist fight and pussied out when it was accepted, so never mind Accidentally consulted a Chinese translation of Fight Club for a response that time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
Dickeye did you ever do anything with the podcast I mixed and mastered for you? E: Tesseraction posted:- chinese room - Something libertarians love to do, and I know this because I get dozens and dozens of comments from them on my videos, is break down a counter-argument into composite parts so thoroughly that they no longer have to engage with the argument, and can simply shoot down individual phrases, but sometimes just individual words, and sometimes even jokes that didn't have any relevance to the point being made. I think that process is key to libertarian thinking. It's an allusion to 'objectivity' (coughs sarcastically) in some abstractly pseudoscientific sense, where you're breaking things down into composite parts and rebutting them piece-by-piece, but in doing this you actually lose the essence of the argument. This gets more glaring when you notice that certain topics get brushed off in single sentences. In their second post Rode just writes 'communism is a disaster and everyone knows this' and moves on to the next thing. So libertarian thinking consists of filibustering opposing points of view into oblivion by offering more and more quibbles without actually engaging with the point, combined with very specific assertions about what makes society good, which change and shift in accordance to new evidence and are usually unfalsifiable - society gets better when things are laissez-faire, oops, turns out I accidentally supported slavery there, erm, slavery doesn't count! - backed up with common knowledge - 'because if you're smart, like I'm sure I am, you already know X and I don't have to prove it or think about it more than this'. Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
The difference between a philosophy and a religion is that one comforts you with the thought that things are fundamentally more complex than they seem, and the other, that they are more simple. At any given moment, a person might be in a more philosophical/critical mood, or a more religious/reductionist one, but some people sure seem to have a pervasive craving one way or the other. We've probably all been guilty of underestimating the importance or subtlety of an unfamiliar subject, and it can be embarrassing to realize our ignorance...so why not double down and openly deny the subject's depth and importance, even in the face of all evidence? You might say this isn't a very convincing debating tactic, but only philosophies benefit from debate, whereas religions demand devotion. That's how I understand the kinds of doomed proselytizing you see in YouTube comments and this thread: for jrode it's a form of prayer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
That's actually something else I notice in comments. There's this insistence that 'the free market', again in some kind of abstract way, would make things better for everyone if it weren't for X people blocking the way with their...light criticism of portrayals of characters in video games and movies. These people, unsurprisingly, usually have a tenuous understanding of how markets actually work. Guy in my comments section, calling themselves The Crimson Fucker, is very, very upset that the new Ghostbusters are women. It is proof that there is a conspiracy to destroy things he likes. Perhaps, if he complains loudly enough in the comments of a video about cultural marxism, the writers and creatives who decided to make the film that way will become uncorrupted by feminism and make a 'normal, pure' Ghostbusters film. Presumably with all men. It doesn't help that the free market in libertarian fantasy functions like a god. If you just trust the invisible hand, everything will be okay. What? The rich are getting richer? Don't complain. Let the free market do its work. If you complain that's censorship. All lives matter. Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Wait, The Crimson Fucker? That's the fake troll name of Hellsing from the TeamFourStar parody of Hellsing. Is someone seriously using a specifically designated troll name and expecting to be taken seriously?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Dickeye did you ever do anything with the podcast I mixed and mastered for you? Nope because I am a horrible human being who hates his own projects too much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Wait, The Crimson Fucker? That's the fake troll name of Hellsing from the TeamFourStar parody of Hellsing. Is someone seriously using a specifically designated troll name and expecting to be taken seriously? Yup:  This is an excerpt from one of many ridiculously long comments. Whether they openly identify as libertarian or not, you can see the tacit belief that there's a way the market 'should' function - you have fans, and cannon [sic] and you 'serve' the fans and stay true to the canon. But the fans are being screwed over by 'outside forces'. Feminazis, SJWs, what have you, who are altering the canon to make it more feminist, and this is bad and dangerous and they're trying to take over our minds. The company is doing this because they're being greedy ("to make a quick buck"). The assumption is that the natural order is for fans to get exactly what they want, in accordance with what they believe is the unchangeable parts of the canon, in this case the genders of the main characters, and in doing so they give the corporation their money, and everything is fine. Unfortunately this underestimates how markets actually work in a fundamental way. Big companies are smart. They know how fandom actually works, from an economic perspective. Fans throw money at things they identify as 'fans' of, even if they're a little worried it's not going to be great. Is Crimson Fucker going to spend money to see Ghostbusters, even if only to see how bad it is (in his dumbshit opinion)? Oh, I'll bet! Additionally, properties with massive popcultural impact will sell regardless. In other words it's actually in the company's best interest to make something that will appeal to new people who might not have liked the original, or been interested in going to see it. In other words, basic economics doesn't actually serve fans when it comes to stuff that 'goes over' and becomes popular in a wider way, because they already have your money and they know it. Instead of accepting this and maybe learning to be critical of free-market economics itself (because the consumer loses out in more than just films they're fans of (which is a loving stupid problem to obsess about), but all over the place for a wide variety of reasons, planned obsolescence etc.), it's easier to pretend the company has somehow been 'corrupted' and can be fixed if you shout hard enough or something. Which, as Hawkins points out, is essentially prayer. They also denounce the greed of corporations, as if wanting to make money wasn't the entire modus operandi of a corporation.Presumably, corporations actually exist solely to do nice things for their fans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
The thread is due to be closed on Sunday still right? I need to remind myself to write up that roast by tomorrow then. I dunno, maybe it's my ethnic time preference kicking in? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Yup: Wait, they subscribe to libertarian theory and are suddenly shocked and surprised when companies do things to make money? Isn't that the entire loving point of the free market that they endorse?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
It is, but the tacit underlying belief is that the market secretly supports them. When that turns out not to be the case, well...time to harass journalists on twitter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:That's actually something else I notice in comments. There's this insistence that 'the free market', again in some kind of abstract way, would make things better for everyone if it weren't for X people blocking the way with their...light criticism of portrayals of characters in video games and movies. These people, unsurprisingly, usually have a tenuous understanding of how markets actually work. I think that libertarianism is the symptom and not the cause, here. The cause is that they're immature, and possibly alienated and poorly adjusted to adulthood to boot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I've often encountered this libertarian streak in gamers who complain loudly at any attempt to make a games more inclusive. They define "censorship" as "any opposition to my opinions being treated as fact" and the best "free market" solution is one that gives them everything they want, crafted to their personal tastes, for free. It's a remarkably selfish and childish viewpoint, even by libertarian standards. My favorite part is when these people complain about how those "dirty SJWs" are so evil for saying they won't buy the product as is. But if the company obliges and works to fix whatever the problem might have been, then the "real gamers" will instantly go 'I'm not buying any of your games ever again'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
The only moral boycott is my boycott.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Curse the free market of ideas for not pandering to me specifically!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:The only moral boycott is my boycott. And from that one Call of Duty group, we know they're not actually going to boycott anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I've often encountered this libertarian streak in gamers who complain loudly at any attempt to make a games more inclusive. They define "censorship" as "any opposition to my opinions being treated as fact" and the best "free market" solution is one that gives them everything they want, crafted to their personal tastes, for free. It's a remarkably selfish and childish viewpoint, even by libertarian standards. Rodimus accused me of "the worst kind of 21st Century censorship" for calling him a racist after the "any young black guy I see on the street is probably a gang member" incident. As for the rest of the post, it's a typical response to the idea of capitalism giving people just deserts. The "invisible hand" was explicitly the hand of Providence in the Wealth of Nations, and the idea of the market as a karmic force has never really gone away. So when the market starts rewarding the "unworthy," the problem must be that the free market is being distorted, not that the free market is amoral (or even that your ideology is immoral).
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Something libertarians love to do, and I know this because I get dozens and dozens of comments from them on my videos, is break down a counter-argument into composite parts so thoroughly that they no longer have to engage with the argument, and can simply shoot down individual phrases, but sometimes just individual words, and sometimes even jokes that didn't have any relevance to the point being made. A good example of this, though not from a libertarian: https://webcache.googleusercontent....n&ct=clnk&gl=us But to be honest, I think this is really a generally bad debate process that's common on the Internet overall, not just with libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Wait, they subscribe to libertarian theory and are suddenly shocked and surprised when companies do things to make money? Isn't that the entire loving point of the free market that they endorse? Hbomberguy posted:It is, but the tacit underlying belief is that the market secretly supports them. Yeah, the ranting at corporations is the funniest part to me and reveals how much libertarianism really is a theory of capitalist inadequacy. I mean, I can see the complaint when it comes to creative works in general. The idea is that there's a conflict of interests between creators, who want to make something good and also make money, and the businesses they have to deal with, who only want to make money. Fans who appreciate the good things the creator wants to do get mad when it looks like that's being subverted in the interests of making money. That this supposedly comes in the specific form of "SJW pandering" is revealing about who one considers an actual fan, i.e., presumably, girls don't like Ghostbusters (???). But for any problems with the idea of the tension between creators and businesses, it's more plausible coming from someone who does not believe that the profit motive is miraculous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Rodimus accused me of "the worst kind of 21st Century censorship" for calling him a racist after the "any young black guy I see on the street is probably a gang member" incident. I can't find the post but there was a thing in either the DnD or PYF "idiots on social media" thread where someone was mad about being called a racist and said "I have the right to my opinion without having a label slapped on me because of it". Of course, it was because they said some really racist poo poo. Libertarians and conservatives are under the impression that "free speech" means "saying whatever I want to whoever, wherever, whenever and having zero consequeneces in any way whatsoever". That and the "everyone has a right to an opinion, you can't say my opinion is wrong!" is the sort of thing that you'd expect self-styled hard-nosed realists to mock but quelle putain de surprise they're bigger thin skinned babies than they imagine Millenial college students to be. Soviet Commubot fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:It is, but the tacit underlying belief is that the market secretly supports them. It made me laugh really hard when each Atlas Shrugged movie bombed harder than the last one, to the point that the creators were begging people on kickstarter just to finish the series. The free market must be one of those trickster gods, I guess 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Hbomberguy, thank you for watching probably hours of these idiots at a time for each of your reaction videos so I don't have to. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:They also denounce the greed of corporations, as if wanting to make money wasn't the entire modus operandi of a corporation.Presumably, corporations actually exist solely to do nice things for their fans. Tesseraction posted:jrode's argument style, wherein he responds to specific criticisms of his words with often unrelated screeds, reminds me of the simulations of Chinese from the thought experiment. Simulated logic, no understanding of what he's talking about. Like a libertarianism AI construct programmed to respond to our input with the best look-up methods it can manage. By the by, is there a formal name for the tactic where you drop a link to an essay or an entire book and say "read this and then get back to me or else you concede the debate?" He used to love that one. I don't feel obliged to read the entirety of mises.org since he obviously doesn't read much of what he posts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:By the by, is there a formal name for the tactic where you drop a link to an essay or an entire book and say "read this and then get back to me or else you concede the debate?" He used to love that one. I don't feel obliged to read the entirety of mises.org since he obviously doesn't read much of what he posts. If it doesn't count as a true Gish Gallop, it's a close relative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:If it doesn't count as a true Gish Gallop, it's a close relative. Be respectful. It is now known as the Duane Tolbert Gish Memorial Gallop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Nolanar posted:If it doesn't count as a true Gish Gallop, it's a close relative. There ought to be a separate category for when you try to assign thousands of pages of homework as a condition of debate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:13
|
|