so, i'm going to have to avoid the vlogs for a few days. i'll be continuing to vlog - when i get back to it, they'll have to come up quickly until i catch up. but, i just don't have the computer resources to multitask at the moment.
why?
exhibit one is what it looks like when i open a thread on youtube in my browser. youtube seems to be doing something in it's scripting that breaks older versions of firefox, at the html level. it looks like there's a tag here that is aligning the table incorrectly. it is resolvable by upgrading.
however, i do not want to upgrade for ui reasons. if firefox would like me to upgrade, it's going to have to restore my ability to change the ui to the way that i want it. i know that there are plugins, but it's not good enough. it could just be a question of finding the right about: config options.
for example, i should have the right to default the ui back to square tabs. and, i should have the right to combine everything to two lines, to provide for more space. a picture is attached. the modern firefox ui (the ripped off chrome ui) is just wasteful.
i don't want it and will resist it until the end. i will use a fork if i have to.
i want to be clear that it isn't about security settings. i don't believe in "internet privacy". the internet is a public place! it's incoherent: a contradiction in terms.
but, the chrome ui sucks. i don't want it and i won't use it.
this is particularly problematic for me at the moment because i'm archiving - i'm tracking down old youtube reply threads, copying them to an output file and deleting my contributions to them. i can't do that in firefox without updating, as you can see. so, for now, i've been using an updated version of firefox in a virtual machine [with a ui plugin to eliminate the hideous chrome update].
i also edit vlogs in that same virtual machine. i simply do not have the resources on my 32-bit machine to do both things at once.
uploading the vlogs in a timely manner is less important, in a historical sense, because they will exist, regardless of if they're uploaded. it's just a marketing tool, remember. so, i'm going to halt the uploads until i'm done archiving, when i can get back to multitasking.
(so, it seems obvious that something is backwards in the script. i'm not going to pretend that it's an error - they're trying to force me to upgrade, for some data collection reasons.)
(compact & efficient.
it's just the question of user choice that bothers me. you do what you want. i don't care. just don't tell me how to organize my fucking browser...)
there appears to be an issue with the water pressure. it comes in and out, which is not the end of the world - so long as it comes back, and it always does. but, it seems to be dependent on the weather. it seems to slow down a lot when the temperature comes down. that relationship has held this morning. so, i'm left to conclude that maybe something is freezing over....?
i'll let you know if the pressure comes back when it warms up over the next few days.
(pause)
yeah, i think that what's happened is that the heat upstairs was turned off, and the pipes somewhere in the basement have frozen as a consequence of that. i'm leaving the water running (cold) to try and de-ice the pipes.
it was very nice last weekend. but, it's been below zero for the last several days. and, there's no source of heat in the basement. so, if you don't have the heat upstairs on, it gets very cold in the basement (causing me to turn my heat up to buffer).
what i'm getting across is that i understand that i have a lease responsibility to prevent the pipes from freezing. i've had the heat on in the unit. but, it seems like the heat is not on on the main floor. so, i need to deflect responsibility for any burst, frozen or broken pipes.
(pause)
i let it run for a few hours and turned it off because it wasn't making any difference. also, the pressure is the same for both the cold and the hot; one would think that a frozen pipe would affect one more than the other, unless the frozen pipe is on the way into the building. i still think the dominant factor is like the heat coming off upstairs.
i'm just pulling out a correlation with temperature and making a guess. it should warm up on monday. i'll let you know if the pressure comes back before then.
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
actually, i want to second this. we're being set up with a shitty deal. the media is trying to pressure us into voting for clinton by implying that we must be white trash racist scum if we're not. never explicitly. but between the lines, always. and, it's backfiring. instead, we're walking into a reality where the media is leading us down the path to this end point where hillary clinton is the nominee and it's black people's fault.
but, actually, it really isn't. look at the numbers more closely. there's a bit of rambling on this topic on my page if you care to look. but, she's carrying these states with big white victories as well.
she's winning in the south because southern democrats are conservative christians and they don't like the liberal jew. it's across racial lines. he does better with younger voters that identify as liberals, regardless of any other category. it's actually the easiest narrative you could build. but, the media is trying to obfuscate it and split us along racial lines instead.
Sanders leads Clinton 58% to 39% with 18-39 year olds.
Clinton leads Sanders 52% to 48% with 40-49 year olds.
Clinton leads 62%-33% with voters 50-59
Clinton leads 65%-29% with voters 60-69.
Clinton (82%) leads Sanders (16%) with voters 70 and older.
pretty clear trend. maybe a little too clear.
i don't really like ivr polls. but, those are numbers that are hard to spin.
Clinton is ahead with white voters 61%-35%.
Clinton has a huge 84%-13% lead with African-Americans.
so, michigan is the state where bernie needs to break this trend and close that gap. black voters in michigan ought to be a lot more liberal. if he can't close that gap - at least to the point where it's statistically immeasurable - then he has to deal with the reality that there's a racial component to the race.
let's be clear, though: african-american voters will not turn the results in michigan. there's just not enough black people in michigan. the pivotal part is going to be swinging older people.
but, whatever the black numbers are, they need to get closer to the white numbers in terms of percentages.
it's just a proof of concept. he has to demonstrate that blacks aren't voting as a bloc, somehow - that issues and individual preferences are more important than racial identity politics, or whatever it is that people are throwing around.
well, they've counted all the votes in massachusetts now, and she managed to win by one delegate.
the proper scorecard is:
hillary: 6
bernie: 4
& one tie
but, it's the delegate count that matters. and he kept her under 600 pledged delegates (the superdelegate talk is establishment scare mongering - they are free to change their vote at any time, and would be committing suicide if they voted against the primary process). she's less than 200 ahead. he can catch her on that, if he can beat her in pennsylvania and washington and ... by the same margins that he beat her in minnesota and colorado - and if he can split, or win, michigan and florida. and, he can do this. the democratic nominee should not be determined by the bible belt! and, you can't blame liberals for bailing, if it is.
but, the race is pivoting this week. clearly. there are less red states coming up. logic and abstraction needs to yield to concrete results.
it's just better than the media would like you to believe, that's all i'm saying.
i'm more interested, right now, in trying to understand this map. maybe it's evidence that a canadian should be taken skeptically - and i've warned you repeatedly. but, i think it's a little more sinister.
this map makes absolutely no sense. clinton's ability to disproportionately swing blacks makes no sense. and, when things consistently fail to make sense, it's reasonable to question their legitimacy.
i don't claim to have an understanding of data on the urban/rural split in america, and the fact that the parties have been so interchangeable for so long throws some wrenches into everything. but, in canada, this map would be equivalent to suggesting that the ndp swept the rural farming communities and suburbs, while the liberals swept the downtown cores - which had a certain level of coherence 100 years ago, but is impossible to understand, today.
the wealthier people live outside the urban cores. they own property. they have good jobs. they're less interested in "socialism". the less wealthy people live inside the urban cores. they work minimum wage jobs. they rent. they're more interested in "socialism".
so, how does sanders sweep the rural areas and clinton sweep the urban areas? it's the same incoherent proposal as clinton sweeping urban, southern blacks. but, at least you can jump through some hoops on that. i don't see any hoops to jump through on hillary sweeping boston and sanders sweeping the countryside.
i'm only able to come up with two explanations, and they both reduce to an unfair election:
1) turnout is remarkably low. now, why this is is maybe complex. apathy. voter suppression techniques, perhaps? you don't think the democrats are above that, do you?
2) it's just rigged from the start.
no, i can't prove anything. apathy is the least complex hypothesis, but i'm not entirely convinced it's the right one.
we'll have to see, as time goes on, if any of this starts to make any sense or not. but, i can't explain my inability to make sense of that map in purely cultural terms. this is a class analysis, and that ought not be corrupted by inconsistencies in canadian v american culture.
that map is simply impossible to understand as an accurate reflection of popular will. and, it's not just that sanders lost in boston - it's that he won outside boston, too. it's completely the opposite of what anybody ought to expect.
just to add to this: you can see the "boston upper crust" on the map by looking at the republican map. they voted for kasich. one would expect to be able to reasonably super-impose those two maps around the boston area - albeit not outside of it. so, yes - one would expect that upper crust that swung to kasich to also swing to hillary. but, one would equally expect the famous boston working class (that clearly swung to trump) to swing to bernie, as well. the map suggests otherwise.
that's the part of it that i can't make sense of. and, yes, the urban/rural split ought to be inverted. but, i can't understand how the urban poor in massachusetts of all places is voting against it's class interests like this...
--
the only other answer here - and, i'm sorry, but it is - is that lower class americans (across racial and geographic divides) are simply so unaware of what their class interests actually are that they're unable to make a decision that is in their proper self-interest. and, that throws the whole basis of democracy out the window. it reduces the entire thing to a pointless charade.
3. to ensure that a candidate's perspectives demonstrate proper consistency with the "washington consensus" of establishment objectives, principles and tactics. the bankers vetted the politician.
see, conservatives think this is terrible and proof that trump is a liberal. i think it's just as valid to point out that it's evidence that hillary is a shill. drop hitlery. godwin's law. shillary is better.
you had the opportunity to make chocolate milk. if you wanted to be uber hipster, you could have made strawberry or even banana milk. but, you went with the most boring choice possible.
total fail.
also: your bedroom is a green screen. wtf?
you don't really believethis, do you?
if you really wanted to know what would happen if you put marshmallows in a vacuum, you would eject conan* o'brien's head into space.
*ted kennedy is dead, so conan ipso facto becomes the punchline of all of his own jokes.
i think i've demonstrated that clinton isn't winning in the south because of black or minority support - that she would be winning there anyways, and that what's going on is more cultural than racial: conservative voters are supporting her, across racial lines.
i don't think i've demonstrated that bernie is able to win black liberal voters. the demographics haven't provided for it, yet. i misunderstood virginia (what i was thinking is more applicable to maryland).
so, michigan is massive in trying to chart out the rest of this.
it's less that bernie has to win the state, although it would help. he'll be ok if he splits the delegates. michigan is kind of purplish, and it's not reasonable to expect a bernie blowout. in fact, i believe that clinton is currently leading most polls...
it's more that bernie absolutely has to win some black voters. he simply cannot get beaten down like he has been in these southern states. black voters in michigan are liberals. there is a measurable black middle class around detroit. the data has to uphold the idea that the split is ideological, not racial.
if the data starts coming in and you see these huge margins with black voters, bernie is going to have to acknowledge that he has some problems. it doesn't make any sense. but, he's going to have to address it.
so, that's the date to circle: michigan. and the key question is whether bernie can swing some northern black liberals or not.
is colorado a blue state, now? well, it's acting like one. and, he got nearly 60%.
he got over 60% in minnesota. clinton got over 60% in a few southern states. so, it kind of balances out, even if the delegate count is a little lopsided because there were more red states in play.
and, massachusetts was a clean split.
when the situation reverses, and there's more blue states at play, the numbers will start to right themselves. it all hinges on the question of whether he can win states like oregon, washington and california by the same kinds of margins. how about pennsylvania?
and, i think he can.
like i say, this is just a bad schedule for bernie. louisiana and mississippi are likely to also be bad. but, he's just gotta break even after that until some of those liberal states come up. if he can win them by the same margins that he won colorado and minnesota, it will start to balance out before june.
i think it's clear that it comes down to california.
sanders, however, was not at all able to breakthrough in atlanta. those numbers suck, there's no way around it. one would have hoped he would have done well in atlanta, even if he crapped out everywhere else.
i thought there was a substantial black population south of dc, being that it is in dc, and i know there are plenty of blacks in dc (and baltimore).
but, this map suggests that:
(1) this area has few blacks
(2) clinton won this area.
it also suggests that the black population is higher around norfolk, and that sanders won some of those counties. so, my logic may have worked out in the end, despite misunderstanding the demographics of the state.
it seems that clinton win both white and black voters in virginia.
the "clinton wins massachusetts" thing is a good example of what i was talking about, and what many people have pointed out.
it's currently at 95% reporting:
clinton: 50.3%
sanders: 48.5%
you can't truly call that. especially not with the last precincts coming from the most populated areas around boston (and everybody being aware of that).
but, they call it early to get the headlines before everybody goes to bed. and it's this reinforcing thing, right.
people just have to be able to see it for what it is. it's the only way to deal with it.
the delegate count, btw, is 45/43. given that the three precincts still to report are known to be heavily populated boston area precincts, it's actually likely that he'll win the delegate count. barely.
if i understand right, it's not strictly proportional but based on who wins what precinct. that happened to clinton in 2008. she won the popular vote but lost the delegate count because she got beaten in the urban cores.
anyways. it's 1:00, now. it'll close down within a few hours, no doubt. we'll see how that works out. but, it's just a good example of how this works.
i'm going to need to wait until some more data comes in to do a closer analysis and debunk the race theory. but, considering that i caveated oklahoma (which seems to have finished voting very quickly, indicating low turnout - and a small base of exaggeratedly liberal voters, as i hypothesized. oklahoma is just so overwhelmingly republican. all the businesses are republican. all the social advancement is republican. you don't bother joining the democratic party unless you're ideologically aligned with it. you'll probably see the same thing in places like nebraska and wyoming. very red states, sure. but the ten people that bother showing up to vote are going to be doing so purely out of conviction. i mean, i understood this, i was just a little skeptical about it.), we're just waiting on a winner in massachusetts.
--
again, i need data. but, combining 2008 race data with 2016 numbers...
i suspect you will see that the number of clinton supporters was higher amongst both whites and blacks, when you compare these states to the other four - indicating that it wasn't just that more blacks were voting for clinton, but that more whites were, too.
--
but, this is what the media does, right.
if you don't support the establishment candidate, you must be white trash racist scum.
--
i was hoping he could keep her under 60 in virginia.
i do still suspect you'll see a higher number of black liberals supporting sanders, particularly around dc. i have to wait for data...
the results to this point are really not making any sense. and, the republican results are making sense, so it's not like we've entered the twilight zone or something. there's something going on that's not quite right....
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
the idea that if you bring more black people into the system then the banks will have less influence is utter idiocy - you don't need to be white to accept a pay check from goldman sachs (just ask barack obama). but, hillary does have somewhat of a point: you don't get anywhere trying to convince hillary clinton that some ideal is of greater worth than her sponsors. you have to run against her and beat her. why don't you run?
but, if you look into it a little bit further, you'll realize that the democrats really never embraced civil rights so much as they acted to prevent a civil war. they passed the laws, and everything. and, it's true that the really open, loud-mouthed racists moved to the republicans - who courted them on that basis [see the southern strategy]. but, that doesn't suggest that the democrats ever really reversed their positions on much of anything substantive. the truth is that the clintons come from a pretty nasty lineage, and they've done more to uphold it than reverse it.
--
i just want to point out that it's well documented that hillary clinton campaigned for goldwater.
--
this idea that welfare makes people less intelligent is rather curious. does it follow that the strict division of labour would make people more intelligent? that the more work you do, the smarter you get?
it would then follow that the working class should be demonstrably more intelligent, through history, than the idle aristocratic classes, right? that all our great scientists and philosophers should have been people that spent their lives performing hard labour.
ah, calvin. orwell's got nothing on calvin, i tell you. nothing at all.
--
milton friedman also supported a guaranteed income, though. it's not a particularly left-wing idea.
--
this is a debate i've seen before, and these are all the same arguments that normally come up. i wanted to let it come to a conclusion...
see, here's the thing: mlk was neither a republican nor a democrat. he was a communist. and, that's why he ended up dead.
southern black democrats, today, are not a liberal voting bloc. but, they do vote overwhelmingly for the democrats. it's hard to see why mlk would exist outside of this existing relationship, although he would no doubt have been marginalized by now.
cruz is delusional. if rubio & kasich drop out, most of those votes will go to trump. the focus would become beating cruz, not beating trump.
the geography switches after tonight. bernie just got through his rough patch, and he's actually doing a little better than i thought (although i think he needs to win massachusetts, even if it's just a symbolic thing). it looks like he's coming out of this in good shape for some big wins in less conservative states. the media will hit him hard. but, he's in good shape.
the deep south results are not reflective of the democratic base. hillary won five solid red states that the democrats will never win, all by huge margins. the fact that sanders is winning in colorado should be seen as of much greater importance than hillary's fifty point wins in the bible belt.
he has to win some blue states by the same kind of margins to balance it out. california, new york, washington, oregon - those kinds of states. that was always obvious. and, it's not crazy to think he can, either.
this is just getting started.
but, cruz is not going to be competitive anywhere else - he just got through his good stretch, and has nothing but pain left. the texas results are not indicative of the rest of the country. the minnesota and massachusetts results are. cruz is in third in virginia and fourth in massachusetts. he can win some more small bible belt states, but he has no chance in the purple or blue ones. ohio. california. new york. pennsylvania. he's hopeless, there.
what happens if cruz drops, though? trump benefits, too.
the best way to beat trump right now is probably divide and conquer. can the candidates get through a prisoner's dilemma? they're fucking republicans. my faith is not strong. but, they're better off all staying in and continuing to split the field. any narrowing will just benefit trump.
if they all stay in, kasich can bleed northern liberals, cruz can bleed the christian conservatives and rubio can bleed purple-state middle-of-the-roaders. carson can even bleed black votes.
if you remove any of these candidates, only one person benefits: trump.
i don't know exactly how a brokered convention works, but keeping the field split is probably the only way to actually get there.
the cruz campaign is likely not smart enough to figure this out. the kasich campaign might be. the trump campaign probably is.
if the banks push rubio out to clear a path for cruz, they're actually handing over the nomination to trump.
let's see how smart these actuaries really are.
in fact, they might want to increase the field. can they get rand paul to unsuspend his campaign? that'll take another bite out of him with libertarians. & etc.
two out of three (georgia, vermont) are obvious. i doth not protest. no, virginia....
but, i need to be clear: i'm not suggesting that sanders will win virginia. i do, however, think you can expect him to nearly split the delegates - based on stronger than expected supported amongst black liberals.
but, let's see how this works out. i'm making myself a sandwich, i'll be back in a bit.
the reason people aren't able to see through the false equivalence is because they're basing their ideas on a concept of morality, rather than a concept of rational self-interest. i'm attacking them as naive liberals - and i'm right, on this particular point - but it's more of a broadly fundamental difference in the way that conservatives and liberals see the world.
a conservative would interpret racism as immoral, and a violent attack against it as also immoral. they would conclude that two wrongs don't make a right. they interpret the value of behaviour on whether it upholds these moral principles.
a liberal would argue that racism is irrational and that the only logical way to deal with it is through the use of extreme force. now, there's some caveats to that. you have to get to root causes, as well, or you're just perpetuating a cycle. but, when faced with violent racists a foot away from you? there's no morality in holding to some set of commandments. after all, liberals believe that moral principles are contrived nonsense that only exist in our heads. they're useful as a way to order society when they can be demonstrated using tools of deduction, but they have no intrinsic value unto themselves.
if you take a step back, you can see why the liberals are arguing for proactively taking them down and the conservatives are creating a false equivalency. as usual, the conservatives are wrong, here. but, that's the breakdown of thought, anyways.
please remember, as these results come in and the media tries to create a race war in the democratic base, that the following truth is true: obama was and remains the more conservative of the two candidates from 2008, and the results in many places were a reflection of this fact - at least as much as his skin colour was.
bernie's a liberal. he's not a socialist. but, he's at least a liberal. and, in my lifetime, i've never seen a liberal take a real shot at the presidency.
so, it's a different dynamic than we've seen since...what? dukakis? see, the earliest i can really remember in any seriousness is bill clinton's second term...
so, you've got a legit liberal and a centrist. last time, it was a clear conservative and a centrist. and, so you're seeing the spectrum shift to the right, as you'd expect - if you were analyzing results based on meaningful things, rather than convenient categories.
i mean, it's easy to ask people what colour they are or what their gender is, and then chart a graph. you may even pull out a correlation. it's a lot harder to establish any meaningful causality.
if you gathered data on shoe size or hair length or eye colour, you may very well see correlations develop, too. what does that mean?
don't get me wrong: i'm not exactly faulting anybody. people ask these questions. that's the data that exists. if exit polls asked questions about favourite soda or preferred ice cream flavour, you'd have that data instead, and you'd measure charts and try to figure things out.
based on heavy support from sprite drinkers...
and, i'm not denying that there's some value in the data as proxies, either. black southern democrats tend to be conservative, for example. so, the data bunches the way i'm saying, by measuring it the way you're claiming is important, right?
it's just that there's an actual election about ideas going on right now. it's a little unusual. it'll probably go back to normal next cycle, too, even.
but, for now, it would behoove everybody to focus a little more on ideology and a little less on identity.
the results, when they come in, will uphold this. i'll help you out a little by explaining them tomorrow or the next day.
arkansas is mostly white, but it's also clinton's actual home state (not new york, or illinois). so, it's a bad control.
tennessee is better - although note that it is gore's home state. although note that gore lost it in 2000.
texas is fucked, always has been. and virginia is more of a purple state, really.
if tennessee's numbers are (statistically) the same as the numbers in south carolina, georgia and the other southern states (including arkansas) then it can be safely concluded that the dominant factor in clinton's southern strategy is actually not race, and the media is totally out to lunch. something else will need to be pinpointed (conservative democrats vs liberal democrats).
you also want to look carefully at the numbers in atlanta, where there's a substantial intersection of black and liberal voters. i wish there was a state where the democratic base is both black and liberal - but there isn't. so it's hard to test. atlanta is the closest thing we have in the short term. in the long run, let's see what black voters in chicago and detroit and new york think.
actually, virginia is important to watch, too.
tennessee is your control for race....
but, if sanders does surprisingly well in virginia (which means roughly splitting the delegates), this ideological liberal/conservative split in the democratic party will no doubt become more obvious.
as i think that the split is going to be red/blue, rather than white/black, i'll put down what i think, more explicitly:
1) clinton wins the red states, often by large margins. these are texas, alabama, arkansas, tennessee, !oklahoma and georgia.
2) sanders wins the blue states, often by large margins. these are minnesota, massachusetts, vermont.
3) the purple states will split. these are colorado & virginia.
!polling in oklahoma seems to suggest that sanders is winning that state, which is surprising to me. i'm skeptical. but, keep in mind that oklahoma is so red that "moderates" may identify primarily as republicans, leaving behind a sort of a liberal rump that would benefit sanders. there will, of course, need to be some exceptions to the rule - it will be remarkable if every red state votes for clinton and every blue state votes for sanders.
there's black liberals in virginia, south of dc. keep an eye on them.
MegaMazury
These anti-racists are the same idiots like the racists
jessica +MegaMazury
if the kkk get their way, the result is violence directed at what is, in fact, today a majority of americans. it's beyond "unpopular speech". the counter-reaction consequently reduces to self-defense. it's a false equivalency.
if it's one klan member, discourse is preferable - albeit likely pointless. it's even preferable with two. but, as few as three klan members in the same place at the same time is enough of a threat to public safety that i would argue that violence is justified.
it just simply can't be tolerated - especially not with the political climate as it is.
jessica +Going Coastal
the issue with the kkk is not a speech issue. they're not gathering together to protest. they're trying to start a race war.
your argument is consequently disingenuous and should be treated that way.
it's one thing if somebody is writing a book, or doing a march, but, the kkk is raising an army to start a war. they have absolutely no intent to do anything other than kill people. so, there's just not any way to coherently make the argument you're making - you'd have to ignore what they're actually doing.
your choice with the kkk is actually quite simple.
1) you can wait for them to start killing people.
2) you can beat the shit out of them before they get the chance.
this middle point of de-escalation through discourse that freedom of expression is based around does not exist. there is no choice but violence, it's just a question of when the violence happens and upon what terms it happens.
===
ct92404 +Tim
They are incredibly annoying, self-righteous, and narcissistic...much like yourself. You can spot a Tumblr SJW freak from a while away - hair dyed a bright unnatural color, fake glasses, usually but not always fat, and they all talk exactly the same and say "literally" every other word. Misusing the word, I might add. They are also afraid of getting "triggered" by everything and demand "safe spaces" where no one can say anything at all that they don't like. Much like you, they don't believe in the Constitution.
jessica +ct92404
i know the kind of person that you're talking about, but that is not at all what is being represented on this thread. the people you're arguing with are good, old-fashioned anti-fascist punks. we're not afraid to offend people. and, we don't have any attachment to pacifism as a moral principle, either.
the argument is more along the lines of the one against appeasement. that doesn't work. you have to fight.
ct92404 +jessica
That was actually a separate argument that Tim guy and I were having. I was just making fun of him and calling him an SJW because he talks like them, saying "literally" every other word. Well, and also he does believe in the First Amendment.
But to get back on the topic, I completely understand people being angry, I hate the KKK too. I would be there right along with the people, cussing at them and holding a sign to protest them and let them know they are not wanted. BUT where I draw the line is physically assaulting them. They still have the right to free speech, even if we hate them.
jessica +ct92404
if you refuse to hit at them, you have no right to complain when they hit at you. all you've done is enabled them to facilitate violence, out of some naive liberal stupidity.
canada has a more modern constitution with more sophisticated language. we do not allow for absolute free speech (and, in fact, you don't, either). rather, we allow for freedom of expression within the limits of a free and democratic society.
an organization that would openly carry out acts of genocide if it were not for the violence of state coercion is not an organization that ought to be allowed to operate within the limits of a free and democratic society. the only thing that is stopping them from behaving violently is the threat of violence against them. the seriousness of that threat must be made clear, or they will resume their lynchings tomorrow.
you need to pick what side you're on. they are at a perpetual war against all. and, they won't return your naivety.
===
The Helghast Empire
worser...They beat up people...The racist would never...
jessica +The Helghast Empire
the kkk is a violent terrorist group that seeks the elimination of several ethnic groups through state-enforced genocide, and the forced slavery of others. yet, you claim they wouldn't beat people up?
your ignorance is astounding.
the reason people aren't able to see through the false equivalence is because they're basing their ideas on a concept of morality, rather than a concept of rational self-interest. i'm attacking them as naive liberals - and i'm right, on this particular point - but it's more of a broadly fundamental difference in the way that conservatives and liberals see the world.
a conservative would interpret racism as immoral, and a violent attack against it as also immoral. they would conclude that two wrongs don't make a right. they interpret the value of behaviour on whether it upholds these moral principles.
a liberal would argue that racism is irrational and that the only logical way to deal with it is through the use of extreme force. now, there's some caveats to that. you have to get to root causes, as well, or you're just perpetuating a cycle. but, when faced with violent racists a foot away from you? there's no morality in holding to some set of commandments. after all, liberals believe that moral principles are contrived nonsense that only exist in our heads. they're useful as a way to order society when they can be demonstrated using tools of deduction, but they have no intrinsic value unto themselves.
if you take a step back, you can see why the liberals are arguing for proactively taking them down and the conservatives are creating a false equivalency. as usual, the conservatives are wrong, here. but, that's the breakdown of thought, anyways.
i'm normally doing this routine for republican voters.
hillary supporters don't care about the military. like, at all. they care entirely about domestic issues. she can blow up as many countries in africa as she wants, it's not going to crater her at all. this is useless, as a tactic - unless you're trying to hold female identity voters to the republicans. but, you might want to focus on something else.
so, i know ahead of time that when i point out that it's disgusting that nobody talks about civilian casualties that i don't have an audience. that ought to be the issue, here. but, the republicans won't touch it because they know their base doesn't care. and, bernie's trying to beat her on domestic politics - which is actually probably the right choice.
the end result is that the real reason she should not be president is never going to get discussed.
she destroyed an entire country and set the world on the path to world war three in order to get a few headlines - and she didn't even get the press she wanted. and, nobody is even mentioning it.
this page will soon be wiped down, like the other one.
my vlogs are staggered by a week, but this topic will present itself in time.
bernie is likely to come out of "super tuesday" down pretty far in the delegate count, even if he wins by 70 points in new england (and i think he just might). i continue to think that he has a fighting chance to come back based on a strong showing in california, by presenting himself as the liberal counterweight to hillary's rather blatant conservatism. california is a reliably liberal state. combined with new york, it has a huge number of delegates (546 + 291 = 837). this is bernie's actual path to victory: he has to sweep liberals. it doesn't matter what colour they are, or who they have sex with or what gender they are. and, in fact, getting that point across is really fundamental. so, he's doing this right. it's just that it's not an easy thing to do. and, i'm a realist. it's not over. but, it's clear who is winning. bernie ought to sweep liberals. but, he ought to have won the civil rights vote, too (and, maybe he did - maybe the take away lies in a really strong reevaluation of what drives black voters in 2016).
likewise, the republican primary is pretty much over. cruz will drop out if he doesn't win texas. rubio will drop out if cruz does win texas - because he's not going to win anything. it's pretty clear that trump will win every state on tuesday, with the possible exception of texas. but, neither cruz nor rubio benefit from the other dropping nearly as much as some might think (cruz would pick up a bit more from rubio than rubio would from cruz), and the numbers just don't get there. neither has a serious chance, and that will be made obvious on tuesday. but, kasich is still standing. and, he consequently has a real chance of cleaning up when the blue states hit the schedule. but, this is again an abstraction - the reality is that trump probably coasts.
then, what's left - trump v. clinton.
i couldn't care less. they're both catastrophes. as i've stated a few times here, i honestly don't think that trump makes it past the inauguration alive. so, we're stuck with (probably) eight more years of imperialism and austerity.
so, i'm not going to get between a trump-clinton election.
americans may not realize how important the american election cycle is to canadians. but, it is very important.
as one example, consider health care. the biggest problem facing our health care system is it's geographic proximity to the united states. just about the best thing that could happen to canadian health care is the adoption of a single-payer system in the united states. that would eliminate a massive, corrupt market from being less than 100 miles from almost all of the population. i have selfish reasons for supporting sanders, on this point.
another is inflation. our dollar tends to move with the american dollar. yes, it's tied to oil. but, it's also almost always moving in the same direction as the usd. so, when our dollar goes up relative to the usd, that usually means it's climbing faster. and, when our dollar falls relative to the usd, that usually means it's falling faster. there's also the question of the cost of food. because we import a lot of our food from the united states, inflationary pressures in the united states can have a huge effect on us. s, consider trump's wall, for example. that's going to dramatically increase the price of strawberries. i'm already pissed that they're too expensive!
another issue is foreign policy. we're tied together through nato, and we like to be good neighbours. so, we want to contribute the way we can. but, canadians are not a warring people - we want peace. so, it's in our interests to support candidates that want to reduce the number of wars that nato is involved in.
that's just three obvious issues. there's many more. there's nafta, and the tpp. there's climate change. there's border security.
i mean, listen: america is the empire. everybody is affected by what they do. but, we are in much greater proximity. a famous leader of ours said that it was like sleeping with an elephant - no matter how friendly relations may be, every twitch is dramatically felt. and, this is very much true.
so, i mean...you'd have a lot of nerve to tell people not to interfere. as though america never interferes in events outside it's borders, right? get fucking real. but, canada is far too invested to not interfere, and america will just have to deal with that. get used to it - we're not going away, and we want a say and we will not be quiet.
but, i can't pick a side if the election is trump v clinton. they're both too awful. i could loudly argue for sanders. and, i could loudly argue against both trump and clinton. but, i'm not seeing a reason to root for one or the other.
i think clinton would be better domestically - if barely. however, i actually think that trump would be less inclined towards interventionist conflict - he strikes me as more of an isolationist. i'd prefer trump's foreign policy.
i could maybe get involved with a third candidate. or, if sanders manages to get ahead in the ways i'm suggesting...
but, i think my interest in this cycle has closed. i just don't see much that's going to excite me.
although i'll close off with one more observation: i think i'm probably pretty reflective of a general opinion. if hillary wins and barely carries any blue states, and trump wins with weak support from conservatives, you could see record low turnout.
this is all very true - but it's not surprising. it's been clear for quite a while that, despite having a solid civil rights record, and despite clinton having a clearly racist record, sanders cannot beat bill's saxophone - and, perhaps, obama's quasi-endorsement. it's a sad reflection of the voter base, but everybody saw this coming.
sanders has to do something that has not been done in a long time - he has to ride white liberal support to beat black conservative support. that's different than in 2008, where the difference was less ideological.
i think that sanders could conceivably win big in both california and new york. i haven't seen polls for either. but, massachusetts is a better comparison than south carolina - and some polls have him beating clinton in massachusetts by over 70 points.
that's right. over 70 points.
it's not really black v. white. it's more north v. south - which means liberal v. conservative. red v. blue. and, it's a big deal.
iowa and nevada are purple states, and they split the delegates. new hampshire is a blue state, and sanders won huge. south carolina is a red state, and clinton won huge. that is the dynamic that you are likely to see repeated: clinton is going to win red states, and sanders is going to win blue states.
and, both by substantial margins - because that is the real split that is developing. it's not identity. it's ideology.
(although i still think sanders would be doing a lot better if he was a christian and appealed more to the christian/conservative base of southern black democrat voters)
see here's the thing: if clinton wins then it means that liberals will be void of a candidate. and, it opens up a space for a third party run.
i'm not joking. if this pattern holds and sanders wins all of the blue states by 50% and clinton wins all of the red states by 50%?
well, what other conclusion is there, then, that the blue states need to back a new party?
it's not a new thing, either. maybe they need to modernize the delegate structure so that it gives less power to red/conservative/southern states [who used to be democrat locks, remember]. but, northern liberals have been getting reamed by this party for decades. they want universal health care. they want to tone down the military-industrial complex. they want lower tuition. they're liberals. and, they're unable to get anything through, because they're held up at gun point by a delegate system that wants to define the race by who wins in south carolina.
bernie has a hill to climb. clearly. but, i am certain that the clinton campaign is going to be dramatically disappointed by numbers from california and new york. the question is whether it's enough that he can catch her or not.
the odds are against him, maybe. the conventional wisdom, sure. but, the numbers from blue states are consistent: sanders is their overwhelming choice.
i am consciously choosing to not review the show last night. i will continue reviews next show. there's a reason, but even pointing it out would contradict my reason not to do the review. that's all you're getting. sorry.
an economic truth that has arisen over the last several decades is the reality that individualistic feminism (the kind that argues that women's liberation is tied into increasing economic freedom) is inconsistent with technological innovation and automation. that is, these ideas are moving in different directions.
that is to say that the increasing elimination of labour through the expansion of technology is happening at the same time as increasing female participation in the labour market. this has led to structural unemployment levels, and it is single men who have been most affected by it.
there's a lot of reasons why this could be seen as progress, and the rising problem of unemployment for single men as collateral damage. but, this is a short-sighted way to look at things. there are costs to unemployment that all of society - including employed women - need to pay. if you're one of the social engineers at the top, you need to weight positives off against negatives and work out cost-benefit analyses.
does the higher level of talent that women bring to the workforce offset the necessary deadweight created by increasing male unemployment? and how is the system to react to forecasts for increasing levels of structural unemployment?
all of this is creating an alliance between certain progressive strains of thought and certain conservative strains of thought to put greater emphasis on the role of the family, as it is the most profitable way for the elite to order society.
as an anarchist, i realize that liberal approaches to feminism are not emancipatory. one is not less free in the family than they are in the workforce - these are two broadly equivalent expressions of slavery. true emancipation can only be achieved by abolishing currency relations and working towards full communism. but, it has long been understood that the perception of freedom is more important than the actualization of it. it is enough that you think you are free.
the economics of the situation are not up for question; they're agreed upon across the spectrum (for an example of a flat-out marxist thinker that believes that individualist feminism will collapse capitalism as we understand it through mass unemployment, see richard d. wolff). so, we're going to be seeing an increase in this kind of brainwashing in the near future.
it's back to the kitchen, ladies. a technology-based economy can only support a fraction of the jobs, and it's just cheaper to convince you to stay home than it is to hand out welfare checks for single dudes.
i'd like to request that somebody in the serious media does a serious analysis on the effects that a border wall would have on the price of food in north america.
the identity politics narrative on hillary won't go away.
they express bafflement at women not voting based on identity. then, they try and explain it away using more identity politics. if she was only gay, if she was only black...
stop.
how about: if she was only liberal.
it's not hard. female liberals respond poorly to clinton because clinton is not very liberal. it's the same reason that male liberals respond poorly to clinton.
the takeaway is that clinton tends to do poorly with liberals. which is neither surprising, nor is it new.
you want a control? here's your experiment. do this study:
ask female voters that have picked sanders over clinton about their opinion of elizabeth warren: a white female.....liberal.
you'll see your arguments fall apart, as warren dominates clinton - and probably beats sanders (amongst women).
kids are going to have stupid trends. remember the stupid trends when you were a kid? it's fine to have hated them at the time; i remember thinking the macarena was pretty bloody stupid.
what i find more unsettling, and more worthy of legitimate hate, is when adults want to hop on teenager memes. i never had to deal with some fifty year old listening in and trying to be cool. and, i would not have been impressed, either. i would have thought it was flat out pathetic.
i generally identify as gen x, so i'm speaking to my peers, here: grow the fuck up.
it's gotten to the point where i'm beginning to seriously advocate that canada pull out of nato.
we need to start thinking about putting down global sanctions. trade embargoes. the rest of the world needs to be actively considering ways to take this evil empire down.
why do they hate us?
are you really confused? really unsure?
i'm a canadian, and i'm starting to hate you. no, really. i've never particularly liked you. but, you know - you learn to live through disagreements with your neighbours. it's life. but, i'm starting to really hate you.
i bet a substantial proportion of your population is even beginning to actively hate itself.
maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy: maybe it's the reason you need to spend trillions on defense. but, keep it up.
you've got your best friends rooting for your demise.
i just played around a little on the atwood vlog...
i'm being really strenuously, actively censored. i seem to have the power to take entire posts down.
well, then. bwahahaha...
i've got six primary comments left to remove, although i'm realizing i've accidentally deleted a few. the system makes even less sense than i thought.
(1) if you delete a post on your google+ page, it removes it from the youtube comment section and vice versa. (2) but if you reply to the post on youtube, you cannot access it from your google+ page (and similarly, if you reply on google+)
what's worse is that the hyperlink to youtube seems to break when you have a certain amount of comments. the comments are there. but, you need to scroll through thousands (literally - in fact, tens of thousands) of posts to find them.
so, i deleted a few comments from my google+ page, thinking that i had the pages open and i'd be scrolling through to find them. but, this resulted in removing the comments from the youtube system. they're gone.
whomever created this system was an incompetent idiot. it was a perfect system. and it's been replaced by something that could only be described as irrational.
but, there's six left. then, i need to clear my watch history post-by-post to try and find all the conversations that i had - and are still there.
the koala central command would like to request your help in tracking down our prime fugitive, deathtokoalas.
we
have managed to take over her page and will soon have succeeded in
erasing all of her comments. our koalas are hard at work in
accomplishing this task. you can help us destroy this koala hater once
and for all by replying to any posts where you see our logo.
however, she, herself, remains at large.
this
individual has recently changed her name and identity. she is
considered armed with wit and dangerous to communicate with, so please
approach (verbally) with caution.
we believe that she will continue to communicate from the following known pseudonyms:
bush is out, so it's kasich left standing. and, in the end, that might be what gets him the nomination.
but, trump currently has very large leads in basically all of the northern and swing/moderate states. it may work out to a time issue - kasich may have needed bush to drop sooner (or, more fairly, bush really needed kasich to drop sooner).
if we end up with trump/cruz/rubio left standing?
the reality is that trump is the most moderate, and the least scary of the three.
one of the best things that could be done for a site like youtube is character minimums. you float through that jenner page, and it's just one-line post after one-line post.
again: 20,000 posts, ten ideas. it's the same post over and over. it doesn't seem to be enough to get the idea down and have it catch a wind of upvotes - people want their own posts. and, i'd encourage that, actually. except that it ought to pre-suppose an original thought, y'know?
if you made it so that you'd have to put down 500 characters before you're allowed to post? you'd clear out 90% of the posts. you'd get rid of all of the "you're st00pid!" posts. & etc.
as a user and a content creator? that would be the change i'd make, if i was going to make one. not character maximums - character minimums.
people will get upset at first. but, you'd just have to coach them along a little.
your post is not long enough. please type a little more.
if you're having difficulty typing more, maybe you'd rather find a post to upvote, instead?
i just created and deleted a "normal" google+ profile trying to find an old notifications list for the now almost wiped down dtk page.
so, i got the old
"why don't you want to use google+?" page.
because i don't have any friends. why do you think i spend so much time on the internet?
and, you know, even if i did, what are the chances that i want to read somebody else's feed?
zero.
cat pictures and pseudo-science. i'm jumping at the opportunity, guys. really. reading my facebook feed was the best way i've ever spent my time. honestly.
i'm all about sending information out!
but, if you're cia and you're into tracking me? i've been clear about this on repeated occasions. it's real easy. i know nobody. i have no friends. i have no acquaintances. and i have no interest in meeting friends or building acquaintances, because i'm a bitter, misanthropic loner. cool?
now, give me access to my notifications...
the other option is that i need to go through my view history video-by-video. and, see, here's the thing: i will actually do this. really.
i've been sorting through this page trying to find the comments i left a few months ago, which were designed to address certain commonly expressed statements (of the 20,000 comments here, there's only about 10 ideas expressed) and i just feel the need to address an issue that is expressed here over and over again: biology.
it's all about chromosomes. x's and y's. but, see, this is the problem of knowledge disseminated to people that don't understand how to comprehend it. what are chromosomes, anyways? we know that they code for sex differences, but what exactly does that mean?
the confusion people are having is probably in the catholic concept of conception. they're converting what they think they understand about conception into a fixed idea of sexuality. god creates chromosomes, and chromosomes carry out god's plan. this is wrong, but it's the broad understanding of things.
here's a truth that might surprise people: if you take a genetically female foetus and you flush it in testosterone, it will develop male sexual characteristics. if you take a genetically male foetus and you flush it in estrogen, it will develop female sexual characteristics.
how can that be? you thought the chromosomes uniquely determined the sex, and that was carrying out god's plan. but, what the chromosomes actually code for - both in the womb and in later life - is hormone expression.
the chromosome argument is consequently rather lacking. it is true that transgendered people do not modify their chromosomes. but, the chromosomes only determine their biological sex in terms of how they determine the body's chemistry - and transgendered people do swap out that body chemistry, which is the actual defining point of biological sex.
so, i've done enough testing that it's clear to me that a lot (most...) of the posts that i'm making on youtube are invisible to everybody except myself.
that goes a long way to explain why the hit count came down. and, this is very sneaky - because i experience no signs of censorship. i can see my posts. if i go back to the page, my posts are there. i get no error message. but, if i log out of the site and come back, i can no longer see the posts.
that is behaviour that couldn't possibly be designed with anything other than political censorship in mind.
let's see if i can jam this....
i may have been targeted specifically because i had a habit of removing posts made to my posts. but, let's be clear about a few things.
(1) it was my post. i had the functionality to remove the responses to my posts. and, frankly, i believe i had ownership of those posts. no rules broken, there.
(2) i was actually very enlightened in the way i did this. i'm trying to save the conversations i had. that means plenty of people didn't get deleted - and there were plenty of interesting back and forths.
now, of course, some of the morons that ended up with deleted posts may disagree. but, that's a function of their idiocy - and the problem in the first place. just because they don't realize they're buffoons doesn't mean i have a responsibility to listen to them.
it's just another symptom, really. youtube was perhaps too good for it's user base, for a while.
i don't feel i have a choice but to stop posting here, seriously. they've reduced the platform to something that is essentially useless for anything but trolling. but, if that's what they want, they can get ready for some of it...
what i'm saying is that i may have gotten a very high number of complaints, because i deleted a large number of posts.
but, if you saw those posts, you'd understand - they were personal attacks, baseless insults, unsupported arguments and just flagrant idiocy.
the difference is that i didn't cry to an authority figure. i just removed the posts. then, the people that were posting nonsense and insults complained that their posts were being removed, and i'm the one that ends up getting silenced - while they keep on posting stupidity.
should i have reported them instead of taking matters into my own hands?
no.
the system was designed so that people could police their own content, and that was actually an ideal way to do it.
1) the owner of the video could decide if they wanted the thread there or not; if the owner of the video removed the thread, it appeared only in google+.
2) the owner of the thread could decide who was allowed to comment on the thread, and which comments were allowed to stand.
this allowed for people to moderate their own content - this is the anarchist ideal of self-moderation. it's easy to see why i liked it...
but, people didn't seem to understand the system, or thought that they should have the right to comment on other people's posts, whether they liked it or not. they weren't able to get the abstraction of personal property rights. so, they complained to authority figures, who had to step in - and i'm the one that got punished for it.
again: it's not a situation where i wish i had reacted differently. it's a situation where i'm learning that this is a bad platform, and that i need to adjust to it's failings.
the other option was that my content, while it existed, would not have been the pleasant conversations that people became accustomed to seeing my name attached to. instead, it would have been full of people posting personal insults, back and forth name-calling, strawmen arguments, unsupported arguments, stupid memes - everything else on youtube, essentially. and, then i would have stopped using the platform quite a long time ago. it was either that i cleaned these threads up and pissed a lot of people off, or that i didn't use the system at all.
and, you just have to laugh, right? people wanted in on my comments because they were high profile enough to be noticed. but, that relied on my ability to screen the garbage out. in the end, the garbage i screened out seems to have ganged up on me and has gotten me declared a spammer, out of spite.
but, i wouldn't have had anything worth noting if i had let anybody and everybody go ahead and vomit all over my posts.
in the end, i got nailed for using the system as it was designed, and actually succeeding in making it better, and the youtube comment system has remained a nest of absolute stupidity. if anything, it's worse now than it's ever been.
i can't regret that. rather, i have to point out that i'm a victim of stupidity.
listen: this is how the world works, right?
where's the alternate history where everybody listens to jesus, agrees and goes to smoke a fatty in the park?
mass idiocy is normal. intelligence is always persecuted.
they hate you when you're clever....
the reality is that any other outcome would be unheard of - astonishing.
really, i should be content in realizing that i'm lucky that i haven't been lynched, yet.
i'm almost done in clearing the page down. i should get close to 1500 pages in the end. it's probably 1500/2000 or so. i'm sure the lost ideas will regenerate elsewhere, eventually.
a lot of the polling had bush over 10%. but, i still think you need to look at the bottom three - and realize that the major problem is that carson (who might try running for city council before he runs for president?) is going to hand trump the win.
carson's purpose may be to try and prevent blacks from voting in the democratic primary (and therefore give sanders, the "easier candidate", a boost), but it looks like it's doing more damage to the republicans than anything else.
the bottom three, together, would combine to second place. and i think that's very important to point out, because rubio is a sort of hybrid candidate - created through media obfuscation.
kasich is the sole remaining serious candidate. if he's not able to pull support from carson, soon, and bleed moderate support from trump, then the purpose of the primary becomes voting for trump to stop cruz - and trump wins. huge.
it would be interesting to see what case law "judge" judy is citing, here. there's a concept in the common law system called due diligence. the legal system is based on stare decisis, not fundamentalist calvinism.
the reaction to this video is just another example of how remarkably ignorant americans are - and, in truth, have always been - about the historical basis of their legal systems. americans, by and large, legitimately want to live under sharia law.
how many times did trump declare bankruptcy, though, anyways?
=== kibblewibble1
This lesson will be lost on Bernie supporters. You make choices, YOU pay for them. jessica
no, i think i get it. and, that means that when those kids grow up into criminals because they were forced to in order to survive, and they end up smashing up your car, then that's just you paying for your choice to withhold assistance.
Kban13
You can't reason with people like him. If he admits he is wrong, everything he has been brainwashed to believe falls apart. He doesn't believe facts, and keeps spouting the same lies he has been told by fox news. People like him are the reason the rest of the world laughs at America.
jessica
see, the thing is, though, that, on this particular issue, he actually doesn't have to abolish his worldview.
there are very strong arguments why conservatives, especially wealthy ones, should support social assistance. they don't have to stop being wealthy, or stop being conservatives, to come to a common end - even if they need a very different system of logic to get there.
what he's projecting ultimately doesn't benefit anybody. it just leads to a total systems collapse.
and, if you want to talk about a revival of new deal politics, what i'm saying is really fundamentally important.
Shqipëria Etnike +kibblewibble1
You make choices loooooooooool
What choices do you have when you earn 3x less than you produce in the economy (results by a Harvard University recent study). A lower class American produces 18 dollars an hour and gets paid 7 dollars an hour. The other 11 dollars go to the top 1%. Now how many people are there who are working in America and who get paid less than 18 dollars an hour? Millions. For every 1 million workers the rich get 11 million wealth per hour, and that is a fact for over 50,000,000 american workers. Thats billions per day! Who made these choices? The lower class are no charity. Taking that 11 dollars an hour per person back from the top class is the way to go. Only someone brainwashed from those who take the 11 dollars will want them to keep taking the 11 dollars.
Trust me, the study is only for those who get paid below 18 dollars an hour (majority of Americans), now imagine doing a study for every worker of USA. The top 1% get fatter and fatter in money every second, and you defend them here even though you are the one whose money they are stealing. No comment.
kibblewibble1 +Shqipëria Etnike
In America you have many choices, and that's the point. Here, birth control is as cheap as it gets. Condoms are dirt cheap, the pill, Plan B, and on and on. Personal responsibility is about doing the right thing, and in this case, having more children, and then blaming the "1%" because you can't afford things is the antithesis of that. Ask yourself this question: if i worked hard to remove myself from poverty by doing the right thing, would i be ok with someone arbitrarily setting an amount of money they thought was going to "help" the poor, even if that meant 40% of every dollar I make? Your solution is to simply take money from those you deem rich enough to steal from, and give it freely to others, which ultimately helps no one. It impoverishes one group of people, and only teaches the other group that its ok if they do nothing for themselves, because they can just find someone else to take from. That only works for a little while. We were told by our president that "millionaires" were people who were making 250k a year, and above that was fair game.
I know that Europeans love their socialism, and middle class college kids here love to listen to intellectual professors go on and on about the evils of capitalism, but when push comes to shove, and there are no more rich people to take from, they go down a rung on the ladder. Eventually, if you managed to cling to what you have, they come for you. By then, its too late to say "b-but... I'm not the 1%!" When you look up and see nobody else to take from, these people you railed against the rich to help, will be clawing at your feet and calling for your blood, because you can afford a phone or computer to comment on youtube with, and they can't. If you've ever been dirt poor and climbed your way out, like I have, you learn to despise the theft and vilification, because you know you did the right thing and you're not a bad person. But according to the news, politicians, college kids, and those who didn't do the right thing, you are evil, not caring, and simply a means to an end... and it sucks to see fully capable people turn their noses up at jobs that are "beneath" them, then continue to call for my money. Socialism is evil. Its amoral and destructive. And its designed to keep everyone poor. It elevates NOBODY, and has been proven, time and time again, for the empty promises, stealing, food lines, abject poverty it causes to huge populations, to be a lie.
You're right though, you'll never convince me that stealing from the "rich" and giving to the poor is a good solution... ever.
kibblewibble1 +jessica
You're right... personal freedom and responsibility will ultimately lead to the system collapsing... just look at the havens of freedom that were the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, and all the 3rd world socialist societies theoughout the world! We regularly marvel at the beauties of Soviet progress, or all the inventions that come from Cuba, or all the good the Chinese government does in times of need!
I can't wait til I can schedule a vacation to the Soviet Union to see all the wonderful things there!
jessica +kibblewibble1
ok. kban is right that there's not any use in bothering - but this response isn't reflective of a conservative. this response is reflective of an idiot.
just don't complain to me when your car gets smashed up by poor people - because that's payback for your refusal to share, and you'll have deserved it. no empathy. sorry.
Shqipëria Etnike +kibblewibble1
Simply put, 1 year in University costs on average 50,000 dollars a year. You need to work enough to produce 150,000 dollars to be able to afford that 1 year at university with the current system, cause 2/3rd of your work will go to the top 1%. That's completely not fair. They are stealing your work by paying you way less than you deserve to be paid. How can you agree with that? Come on, you are producing 50 dollars, getting paid 17 (thats the national average). You are producing 18 dollars, getting paid 7 (thats the lower class). How is that fair? It's not about working and planning, it's about defending your money. Why let the top 1% steal it from you? I will never understand these things about America. Why don't you do it like Europe? Here in Europe you can't become a billionaire by cheating on your people, the only european billionaires have become so by cheating on the chinese in China, which again is not correct. Nobody deserves to earn billions. Every billionaire has become so by stealing what his workers have built Top 1% in USA steals 11 trillion dollars a year from you the people, how can you allow that to happen? Why do you support it? It's not right.
kibblewibble1 +jessica
Lol... well your response is absolutely reflective of a "useful idiot". That's what the old Soviet subversives called people like you, not me. I never would've used the word useful to describe you. And don't kid yourself. Once they're done destroying my stuff, assuming i don't shoot them first, they'll come for yours if you have anything left to take.
jessica +Shqipëria Etnike
see, i agree that you don't get anywhere with conservatives by arguing for moral principles of equality. they have a different value system that's rooted in a calvinist concept of work. "right" and "wrong" have very different meanings to them. morals are relative, and you're just simply not operating with the same concepts of justice.
but, there was a time years ago when conservatives understood that the creation of an underclass necessarily puts their own safety in jeopardy. for a while, they tried the tactics of a police state, but that didn't work, so they moved to social welfare. it wasn't socialists that created the european welfare state, it was conservatives - bismarck & churchill. the point was to reduce dissent.
and, it worked.
the united states started peeling back social welfare in the 80s, and replaced it with things like the drug war and the crime bill. this resulted in the largest prison population in the world - a country with more prisoners per capita, in fact, than china or the soviet union. but, this is very expensive. and, it doesn't result in crime prevention.
again - i don't have a lot of patience. if you don't want to pay for this stuff, you can go ahead and deal with the consequence of high crime rates and high incarceration rates. in the end, it costs you far more to run the prisons than it would to send them to school. and, you get all kinds of unnecessary property damage out of it, while you're at it.
i'm safe and sound up here in canada. your choice - your consequences.
jessica +kibblewibble1
a useful idiot was a foreign leftist that was tricked into working for the imperial ambitions of the soviets. it makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever, to use that kind of language, in context. i haven't stated my political affiliations, but i do not identify as a marxist and i'm well aware that i would have been purged by the soviets at the very start - if i wasn't killed fighting in the army that opposed them.
if we can take the context out of the realm of absurdity and back into the realm of reality, we can talk about smarter ways to manage a poor population that is only set to grow with rising automation and decreasing job opportunities. this is a problem that is only going to grow as time moves forwards, and that is going to require distributive approaches to neutralize - whether you like it or not.
or, like i say, you can continue on in the status quo - a system that facilitates pointless criminality, and sinks uncounted trillions into mass incarceration.
you get what you pay for, eh?
kibblewibble1 +Shqipëria Etnike
Like I said, companies do not exist to hand you money. They exist to make themselves money. The wages they pay you, aren't wages until they give it to you, in exchange for work. The amount that comes out to is balanced by how much money they can bring in with their services. This. Is. How. Its. Always. Worked. Of COURSE they are going to pay you like that! If they didn't, they wouldn't make money, go out of business, and you would have NO JOBS. Its up to you (again, personal responsibility) to decide whether your labor is worth what they are paying you. If you think the government will step in and magically force companies to pay you more based solely on "fairness", you can expect those companies to quickly shutter their doors, and leave. And the end result, again, would be NO JOBS. Saying that you could potentially make more money if only they would pay you more is so obvious and ridiculous, nobody ever takes the argument seriously. Them not paying you more isn't them stealing from you! What kind of argument is that? How do you even come to that conclusion?
And universities have artificially inflated tuitions, at least in America, due to subsidizing the loan process. Also, do not be surprised if you waste 4 years of college getting a degree in gender studies, or African dance, and can't get a job to pay back the bloated tuition.
kibblewibble1 +jessica
Oh... Canada... Lol now I see. Let's try a few real life examples here.
I have kids who beg me for cell phones. They want the good ones, and since I love them, I say ok. They get them and in a few weeks they have cracked screens. I replace them. A month later, they are cracked again! This time I make them pay to fix them out of their own pockets. You know how many cracked screens they have had since? My kids have actually done lemonade stands to make enough money for tablets! Do you know how many weekends they had to open up a lemonade stand to buy a $250 tablet?? Do you know that the experience was way more valuable than some piece of shit electronic device?
How 'bout another one? You have a family member who tragically becomes addicted to drugs. It was their choice to get addicted, but you want to help them, because its moral and right! After they destroy their lives, steal from you and others, countless arrests, and overdoses, you finally get them in rehab. They come out and maybe they're ok for a little while, and maybe they go right back onto the drugs. Either way, they end up going through the same thing, all over again. The lying, stealing, arrests, overdoses, the whole cycle, all over again. How many times do you go through that? Once? Twice? Every time until they finally OD and you realize you enabled them? Is it moral for you to do this? Everyone makes their own choices. Enable them, or set them free... but then again, you're Canadian... you just elected DUDEWEED. Enough said there...
jessica +kibblewibble1
all profit is theft. if you were to abolish management (the middle man...), and have the workers run the companies themselves, you would eliminate that theft.
again: this is an argument that you should be able to present to conservatives and actually come out ahead on, as it reduces to eliminating waste. you just have to convince them that management is wasteful and that it's more efficient to get rid of it.
i don't see the relevance of anything you just typed.
but, i need to correct a misperception. i don't want to "help" addicts because it's "moral". i'm a moral nihilist. i don't believe in the existence of an objective morality. but, i'm a secular humanist, which means i think we can construct an artificial morality using logic and reason.
rather, i want to ensure that addicts do not pose a threat to others. i do not care if they use. i do not care if they overdose. i just don't want them smashing up anybody's car to get their fix.
and, empirical study has suggested that the best way to do this is to provide for injection sites.
kibblewibble1 +jessica
Lol objective nihilist that has no objective moral code telling me that it's not "right" that people make a profit? Are you taking acid, or are you just retarded? I'm sorry it's come to petty name calling, but people like you who want to push an arbitrary set of rules based on how they feel at the moment, are legitimately mentally deficient... did you not say that conservatives don't know right from wrong? You immediately follow that up with "durr, there is no right or wrong!"
How fucking absolutely retarded do you have to be to live in your world?
How retarded do you think others have to be to accept your world view?
jessica +kibblewibble1
i'm not making a moral argument; you're the conservative here, you're supposed to be the one into moral arguments. i'm a liberal: i'm trying to convince you that your arguments are not in your own self-interest.
kibblewibble1 +jessica
How bout that? Finally a liberal admits that conservatives are the ones who base their beliefs on morality, rather than some amoral code skewed towards some vague, amorphous, empty set of judgment standards! Thanks, dudeweedlmao! You made my day!
jessica +kibblewibble1
well, your concept of morality is vapid authoritarianism. yet, this is a centuries-old historical division - i'm merely stating dictionary definitions.
KTAnarchist1 +Shqipëria Etnike
"Simply put, 1 year in University costs on average 50,000 dollars a year.
You need to work enough to produce 150,000 dollars to be able to afford
that 1 year at university with the current system, cause 2/3rd of your
work will go to the top 1%. That's completely not fair."
Citation? No? I suppose that isn't necessary when making bullshit claims. I've gone 4 years at an AACSB accredited university for less than $5,000 per year.
Is it possible that there are universities that are as expensive as you claim? Sure. Is it foolish to attend them at those rates, when there are others with equal accreditation ratings that are far less expensive? Yes. It is.
But, by all means, keep complaining about how it's "rich people's fault" that people make bad decisions and support a university that is ripping them off.
And, for the record, that call for a citation extends to all of your figures. You produce $18 (or $50) per hour, yet only get paid $7 (or $18)? How is that, especially when the minimum wage has been over $7 per hour for years, and no employer could hold their employees if they ever figured out "the truth" as you claim it to be?
Look, I'm no millionaire, but I work my ass off for what I make, and bend over backwards for my customers (since they keep my doors open and my wife and kid fed), and I love my job, and don't spend all of my time bitching about my paycheck, even though I took a $4/hr. cut (not to mention other benefits from previous employment that I've left behind) to be where I am right now.
The owner of my company gets to pick his son up from school, or take his wife out to dinner, in a VERY nice Mercedes that I can't afford, and I don't think he's evil for it, because he built the company from the ground up. I wouldn't have had the opportunity to do what I do, with the people I work with, in the locations that we work, if it weren't for him.
The man hasn't stolen a damned thing from me, and has literally given me the clothes I wear to work, at the cost of them not being sold to paying customers.
If anything, I'm jealous that I don't have the means to start my own company, but I wouldn't take a cent from him, or anyone else, that I didn't earn or (intelligently) borrow, in order to do so.
You want to bitch because you think other people are taking your hard-earned money "unfairly," yet you would literally advocate for more of the same, albeit in reverse order, because it either fits your idea of "fairness" or because you think it's going to somehow make everybody equal?
I guess Europe still hasn't figured out irony or hypocrisy. Maybe we should give you guys another millennia to finally understand that there is more to a political/economic spectrum than "collectivist left" and "collectivist right". When you figure out how to put the customer first, and understand that no business keeps their doors open without incoming revenue, you'll have started to figure it out.
Yes, there is evil in the world. People are not inherently evil, even if they are billionaires. Evil is a choice, and its prevalence stems mostly from a lack of proper recognition and confrontation. Wanting to help people? Not evil. Wanting to do so by stealing from others, even with their knowledge and consent? Evil. Theft is not charity, my friend, even if it is theft from "people who can afford it". There are long-term consequences to such policies that will cause greater harm than you seem to understand. When the "evil billionaires" decide to do business elsewhere, all of the non-billionaires who work for them in your economy will find themselves seeking new employment. When entire economic sectors leave or become automated, many of those formerly employed individuals may be unable to find adequate employment. This only worsens the problem, in the long run.
Most people will give until it hurts, for the right cause (which is an individual concept). Beyond that point, they will stifle their own empathy, and walk away. If you think a billionaire, or even a millionaire, is any different, you're likely to find out the hard way that they will seek out greener pastures, and that they have the means to leave yours behind.
America has already learned this with our manufacturing sector, through bad trade deals and collectivist government fuckery.
Godspeed to your honorable endeavors, and have a nice day. KTAnarchist1 +jessica
"we can talk about smarter ways to manage a poor population that is only
set to grow with rising automation and decreasing job opportunities.
this is a problem that is only going to grow as time moves forwards, and
that is going to require distributive approaches to neutralize -
whether you like it or not"
This is where we address the concept of an "information based economy". Surely you've heard of this.
It does not require "distributive approaches", only changes in educational conceptualization and application.
But if someone were to believe that the current educational system is the only possibly effective system, then it is understandable that they would not see this.
Why not teach children the things we spend 13 years teaching them (inadequately) in less than 13 years in a more effective manner? Certainly this is possible. Then, if we insist on maintaining this "you don't work until x age" concept, we focus on vocational training at that age, based upon IQ, aptitudes, and personal student preferences?
Granted, this is quite a shift, but it would prepare new high school graduates for their place in the economy and provide the whole economy the benefit of having ready candidates for a variety of areas, who understand that it is what they know, and whether it is valuable, marketable knowledge, that will determine their "fate" as a working person.
It wouldn't change much in the collegiate realm, and it might actually reduce the number of people who will attempt to attend a college or university despite being entirely unsuited to the effort.
Does it create a hierarchy of ability? No, it simply makes the best use of the hierarchy of ability that is inherent in humans.
Not every child is born an Olympic gold medal winner. Not every child is born a chess master. Not every child is born to be a television star. Those who are not will need a solid ground from which to build their future.
The "distributive approach" is as ineffective, in the long run, as it is immoral in the immediate now.
I will gladly cede that progress is necessary, but I will not agree that the current "progressive" movement is anything but a rehashing of the failed policies that are over a century old, and proven to fail in varying degrees, to the exact degree of implementation, every single time they have been implemented.
The "distributive approach" is not new, and is not worth repeating. Someone here claimed that "the socialists were not responsible for...", and that person is dead wrong. Government controlled employment is welfare, and the Third Reich (among others) excelled in that area, but I single out the Third Reich because you can't properly say "National-socialist German Workers' Party" without using the word "socialist".
The collectivist extreme is communism, and socialism is simply communism wearing soft gloves. The degree of collectivist application determines the padding, but at the end of the day, it's still collectivism.
I will never expect a collectivist to understand the true folly of their ways.
A single person can ask me to do something, and I can tell them, "No".
Ten people can tell me to do something, and I can tell them to get bent.
A hundred can order me to do something, threatening my very life, and I can choose to fight them.
A good collectivist will acquiesce to the first individual, for the "good of the collective"; if the first individual can present their argument in the properly persuasive fashion, no matter what the request might be. Groupthink is the greatest danger of collectivism, and it is evident that far too many people are under its influence.
jessica +KTAnarchist1
the so-called "knowledge economy" has not developed in the vacuum of de-industrialization, and theories promoting it's inevitability should be thrown into the trash heap of history. it was a fantastical false projection that has been long since shown to be pure delusion. what we're seeing, instead, is mass unemployment, mass underemployment and mass incarceration. democrats need to drop their delusions on this point and get with the empirical data.
a better approach is to question the value of maintaining a private ownership in the means of production when that means of production is almost entirely automated. fordism worked as a compromise solution to the contradictions in capitalism for a very long time: you gave the workers enough money to buy the items being produced. it wasn't a utopia, but it was a pragmatic solution. yet, it relied on the existence of production and on paying out high enough wages. that whole system has collapsed, and nothing at all has moved in to replace it. a lot of bernie's support is actually coming from workers who want reindustrialization, and that's utter madness - it's flatly backwards.
frankly speaking, i don't want to live in a society where people are trained to maximize their value to a market. you're enslaving people to capital.
i want to live in a system where people have free access to resources and can apply them in a way that allows them to carry out intellectual and artistic pursuits.
i've been through this argument a million times. it's really not a left/right or socialist/capitalist argument. that only exists on the surface. it's really a question of whether you want to live in this austere, german society defined by these calvinist principles of work and reward, or whether you want to live in more of a liberal society defined by more relaxed attitudes towards labour and a greater focus on recreation.
but, you've taken the discussion dramatically off topic. my intention was simply to point out that it is not within the op's best interests to hoard resources.
and, fwiw, you have a lot of nerve calling yourself an anarchist. you're a slave to capital.
kibblewibble1 +jessica
Wew, lad... That's a real flowery way of saying "I don't wanna work, I just wanna bang on these drums all day!" I'd rather be a "slave to capital", ie; working hard to improve my station in life, than an actual slave for an authoritarian government that decides what's best for me, and reallocates the money earned from my work, to do-nothing, empty headed, rhetoric spewing, hive mind robots who think that everything is better when people have no free will. Corporations don't have the power to send people with guns to your house to take away your freedom when you choose not to do business with them. What part of this do you not understand? Do you even have a job? Do you even support yourself or are you eternally "in school" and living off of someone else?
jessica +kibblewibble1
well, i don't want to work - and i do want to bang on the drums all day. that ought to be a human universal, but we're brainwashed from a very young age to accept these currency-based, coercive market relationships.
i mean, listen to yourself. you're hilarious.
you're a slave!
with a little help from technology, and a big change in attitude, we can build a better society that abolishes coercive labour. you're either on my side on this, and willing to help, or you're working for the banks - whether you realize it or not.
and, this guy calls himself an anarchist.
anachism, first and foremost, is about the abolition of wage slavery. this guy's just regurgitating all the banker propaganda about hard work and the "american dream".
(edit: actually, i apologize - i've confused these two posters. but, the point still stands.)
kibblewibble1 +jessica
Canada, folks... I'm hillarious because I want to work and have nice things, and not have to live off of others, but you're not deluded in thinking, like, really, actually thinking that without going out there and earning what you get, you deserve to be handed food, shelter, comfort, luxury, some sort of sun-drenched fantasy in which you get to play your pan flute, and frolic in a field of daisies & butterflies?? Your parents have failed you. Your school system has failed you. You do not know reality. You are to be pitied and used as a scornful example of what a wasted life truly is. I'm really dying to know how you support your lifestyle now... I know you don't have a job... its gotta be your parents. Are you even out of high school?
jessica +kibblewibble1
see, this is what a slave sounds like. and it's this mindset that needs to abolished for us to emancipate ourselves from currency.
if anything, i hope i'm demonstrating my point that hoarding resources is not an act of self-interest.
i've managed to talk a psychiatrist into filling out disability forms. but, the truth is that i believe i'm entitled to a minimum income and that's just the shortest path to it.
kibblewibble1 +jessica
Wow... at least you're honest about being a fraud and a liar... I think you should've talked to that psychiatrist about a little more than defrauding your government. Why do you think you're entitled to anything? You obviously would be useless even in your own fantasy utopia, let alone in a productive society.
jessica +kibblewibble1
yeah, you guys don't really believe in ideas like human rights. that's well understood to people outside your borders. kind of a shame, though.
i think i'm entitled to human rights because i'm a human and we've collectively decided that humans are entitled to rights. but, you're a slave. so, you can't understand that.
let me ask you this, though: what is it that you do, exactly, and how do you suppose that it is "productive"?
kibblewibble1 +jessica
I asked you first, but to answer your question anyway, I work in the petrochemical industry. I produce tangible goods that people use every day of their lives.
And you're so deluded, you actually think that people providing you with anything you want is a human fucking right? You're saying that where you live they're violating your human rights by making you lie in order syphon off of your government to survive? Lol... you're a really good troll... I can't believe I actually fell for this... Nobody is this sick, even in America...
jessica +kibblewibble1
well, i didn't suppose that i'm entitled to a corvette and a mansion and a dog to follow me around that does backflips on command. i've stated that i believe that i'm entitled to a minimum income, and i'm not about to be browbeaten down by some petrochemical wage slave about it, either.
there was this document signed a little while back called the universal declaration of human rights. have you ever read it? i'd suggest you give it a read through.
for all your precious hard work, how much of that remains out of your grasp?
now, get back to work, you slave.
your concept of productive work is contentious at best. i'm an artist, and i'd argue that what i do is infinitely more valuable than the construction of plastic - which is incredibly environmentally destructive, and needs to be phased out as soon as possible.
regardless. can you explain to me - in concrete terms - why it is that what you do could not be done by a robot?
kibblewibble1 +jessica
Universal declaration of human rights? Who endorsed it? Who wrote it? Who does it entitle to take my labor and apply it to loser artists who produce NOTHING. A fucking artist... why is that not surprising? No wonder you choose to live your life at the mercy of government, who would just as soon flush you down the toilet the first chance they get. Choosing to work for a very good salary versus trying to convince some back alley quack that you need disability, while trying to sell a picture or two is slavery?
If you really want to convince people you are insane, do yourself a favor and print this whole back and forth out, then take it to a judge. They'll lock you up in a looney bin and throw away the key! Then you can draw happy little clouds, rainbows and unicorns til they purge you.
Sorry to disappoint, but, there are no robots capable of doing what I do. It takes human intelligence and innovation, you know (or most likely not), actual skill.
I honestly and sincerely hope you sell a painting for a ton of money. Stop trying to defraud the few people left in your country who want to work and pay taxes, and defraud some rich person crazier than you. Someone who wants to buy some degenerate sculpture, or a disgusting shit-picture or something. Meanwhile, the rest of us who actually produce for others will continue to build lives, raise children, and be happy.
jessica +kibblewibble1
i don't really see anything worth responding to here - it's just an angry slave rant. although, you didn't actually answer my question.
i highly doubt that what you do is beyond the ability to automate. all you've really demonstrated is that you're working with an obsolete technology (oil) that should have been phased out quite some time ago. all i'm getting out of that is a net social negative.
the world would be better off if you were replaced by a computer, and you were given a set income that is able to meet your needs, instead.
i'm the future - i'm existing in a post-industrial social relationship, where i rely on technology for production and spend my time on intellectual pursuits (it's sound art, and you can find some of it by clicking on my name and following the bandcamp links). you're living in an industrial economy, and seem to be advocating a pre-industrial economic theory.
the first step for us to move forwards, socially, needs to be in people like yourself deromanticizing the concept of work. labour used to be a horrible necessity. today, it is being phased out.
but, you must come to this conclusion on your own. i cannot force it upon you.
but, i can suggest an excellent essay: the soul of man under socialism, by oscar wilde.
kibblewibble1 +jessica
Lol, ok... Let me know how all your needs are met when there are no more workers and we're all artists... or in your case, an autist.
This shit doesn't come from thin air... people actually have to work to do stuff. That includes building your robots who can do everything...
By the way, you do know they already have robots and computer programs that can paint, make sculptures and create music, right? Looks like you're already obsolete... people still need gasoline.
jessica +kibblewibble1
i don't expect you to understand that robots cannot create art the same way that they can produce commodities.
it's not that technology can abolish all labour. it's that it can abolish all coerced labour, leaving what is left as entirely voluntary.
....meaning that if you want to work a job, that's great - in fact, it's encouraged. you just shouldn't expect to get paid for it. you should do it because you actually enjoy it.
ask yourself this question: if you weren't getting paid, would you do your job? if not, you should quit.
you certainly shouldn't be attempting to force your miserable mode of existence on to others. it's contemptible.
kibblewibble1 +jessica
Yup... you're retarded.
Just so happens, robots can do everything, but art, which you just so happen to do, and you're solution to metaphoric slavery, is... actual slavery. Y'know, cause the company I work for held a gun to my head and made me work there, and its not right for me to get paid.
Ok. You are an idiot. Good trolling. You made me respond way more than I should. I guess I just like arguing... or beating my head against a wall.
Good luck committing fraud, and i hope you and your wonder-bots have a happy future!
jessica +kibblewibble1
see, it's amazing how these things reinforce themselves. this person has demonstrated:
(1) a clear tendency towards political conservatism.
(2) a total lack of understanding of what art is.
(3) a total lack of understanding of slavery (or, as i've suggested, total slave brainwashing)
(4) a complete lack of intelligence.
they then attack what is clearly superior intellect with base insults.
can you even spell philosophy?
i have advanced stem degrees. but, i took the time to stop and think and read some thinking by some thinkers. and, i came to a set of conclusions that not some but most intelligent people come to, in regards to the value of labour in an industrial society.
the wilde essay is very important. it's the reason they went after him.
kibblewibble1 +jessica
K... keep me posted
KTAnarchist1 +jessica
"anachism, first and foremost, is about the abolition of wage slavery."
You might want to look up the definition of "anarchist".
Anarchism, first and foremost, is about self-governance. Might that include an abolition of wage-slavery? Sure. But where you and I seem to differ is in the area of whether currency-based trade is better than barter and conquest, and whether wage-slavery is an inevitable result of an economy that utilizes currency-based trade. Second, if you'd bothered to ask instead of being a snot, I'd have been happy to explain the idea of my position as an anarcho-realist, which accounts for lazy shits like you, who guarantee that an actual anarchistic society would be a far cry from any form of Utopia.
I don't know what you do for a living, though I am now aware that you don't want to have to earn a living.
If the terms "experience" and "education" have played any part in your social or economic standing, then your arguments against the economy being information or knowledge-based fall flat. But, of course you haven't bothered to think that through.
The truth is that you're just an ignorant, lazy shit who doesn't want to do anything that might be considered "work", and you think that your very survival (let alone any semblance of luxury or comfortable existence) should simply be handed to you because you're alive and breathing.
That, alone, is enough for me to place no value in anything else that you've proposed, especially when you're proposing that everyone should live at the charity of those, like yourself, who do not want to do anything but bang on their drum all day.
I'd like to know where your "free resources" are going to come from, if everybody gets to live your Utopian dream. Or maybe some people get to work for your leisure? Is that not at least somewhat hypocritical?
jessica +kibblewibble1
if you'd read the rest of the thread, you'd know that you're merely repeating the argument.
but, i'm not interested in this debate. i entered this discussion to point out that it's in the op's self-interest to support wealth redistribution.
and, you're not an anarchist. you're a fascist.
kibblewibble1 +KTAnarchist1
Meh... don't bother... he's a child who thinks stuff materializes out of thin air, and that everyone should take advantage of people who do things for themselves, by having the government rob them blind.
He's useless.
jessica +kibblewibble1
the reality is that i'm entirely aware that what i want is infeasible, but i'm not the counter-example. you're the counter-example. the fact that you exist means that i can't get what i want. and, i can see that - most anarchists can see that.
but, it doesn't follow that i'm going to all of a sudden change how i think about things and go be a slave with a shit-eating grin. it does follow that you need to make a choice about how you want to deal with people like me, who are never going to do anything except disrupt your market economies. if not out of logic, than even out of spite.
that is inevitable, from your perspective. i exist. i reject your system. i'll physically fight you over it, if it comes down to it. what do you do about it?
you can throw us in jail if you want. but it's expensive, isn't it? you could try executing us in the public square, and i don't doubt that plenty of you would be just fine with that, but you're going to run into public opposition on that. i hope. my tactic relies on this assumption.
the reality is that it costs a lot less for you to just write me a monthly check. this is the unavoidable conclusion of true rational self-interest. and, i'm not shedding any tears for the slaves that won't fight back - you're right: that's their choice.
if i have a choice between being a slave and enslaving others, of course i will choose to enslave others.
that's not hypocrisy. i'm not rejecting slavery out of some kind of lofty moral principles. it's self-interest.
