Page 261 of 397 FirstFirst ... 161211251259260261262263271311361 ... LastLast
Results 10,401 to 10,440 of 15845

Thread: Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!

  1. #10401
    Actually, to be quite honest, I'd say my biggest source of unhappiness in life comes from being forced into close proximity with stupid and unhappy people. OK, I'm a cow.

  2. #10402
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,388
    The problem with capitalism isn't that people are compelled to work. That would happen in a socialist or a communist country, too: human survival will always demand human labor. The problem with capitalism is that it is designed to set apart a permanent, autocratic class of economic decision-makers. Your only choices are which autocrat you will toil for, and which of these autocrats you will consume products from, but that's only just enough to make you a free-range slave. (Or a free-range cow, whatever you prefer.)

  3. #10403
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    Unless by "cow" you are referring to the fact that I am forced to sit in an office chair and type at a computer in relative social isolation, instead of freely roaming the African savannah to scavenge for carcasses like my ancestors did, I don't see the difference between a happy, productive person in ancient versus modern society. Then again, I guess I'm fairly privileged.
    By "cow" I am referring to the way you are treated and valued in a capitalist society. The autocrats I wrote about above - the capitalists - don't make money the way we do. Their economic incentives are aligned entirely around exploiting the labor of their inferiors, the more brutal the exploitation, the better. Capitalists are happy to let you graze wherever you want, eat as much as you want, get as fat as you want, hell, occasionally they'll even let you pick out your own recipes - but always, always, their goal isn't to help you live the best cow life you possibly can, it's to slaughter you for your meat.

    That's what capitalism is.

  4. #10404
    The particular group of rich autocrats that I toil for are just one particular kind of "cancer". The American variety of cancer that is eating some of my nutrients doesn't change the kind of food I eat, and thankfully it still tastes pretty good. At any rate, I will likely die of heart disease before the cancer kills me (especially since I eat way too much).

    That said, I because of the scarcity of food available, I am forced to live like cattle, in close proximity to people who are about as dumb and depressing as cattle to the point that I might as well be a cow.

  5. #10405
    ITT: are the rich cattle ranchers, or are they cancer? News at 11.

  6. #10406
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,388
    Capitalism is cancer.
    Capitalists are parasites who think they are cattle ranchers.

  7. #10407

  8. #10408
    The cattle rancher analogy actually makes the most sense when you think about how online media companies like Facebook and Google are out to compete for stray cattle to come graze on their pastures, and then slyly latch the gate behind them. Because it's really our brains that want to graze on online media, so they are really parasites of our attention.

  9. #10409
    Also, I feel the comment section of most websites I visit are about as chaotic, morbid, and overpopulated as any slaughterhouse.

  10. #10410
    Face-moooooooooooo-k
    Moooooooooooo-gle
    mooooooooooo-ber

    coincidence?

  11. #10411
    That said, I am still waiting for Facebook to slaughter me. Maybe Uber will get around to it first if I spend enough time as a pedestrian in San Francisco.

  12. #10412
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,388
    the "kill you while walking around San Francisco" market is highly competitive.

  13. #10413
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,967
    Problem: many black voters show up to vote in Alabama

    Solution: launch an investigation into what is obviously mass voter fraud

    https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/20..._absentee.html

  14. #10414
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    Is there anything inherently wrong with working for a living? Are people who need to work to earn a living by definition less free? For what it's worth, my gut tells me the only real difference between those well connected to money and power and the rest of us is that they have a monopoly on various forms of coercion, and we don't: the existence of things like a police force can make us safer from one another (or sometimes do a shamefully bad job at this, and make things objectively worse like killing / tossing poor people in prison for minor offenses), but ultimately it's the rich and powerful who benefit. But beyond not having the right to help the government bomb a bunch of people in the Middle East just so I can buy another yacht? I don't exactly like the idea that I'm a 'cow' just because I have to work for a living. That doesn't mean there aren't parasites leeching off my salary (or that it wouldn't be nice to have to work less and live longer), but there are parasites all over the planet. Of course it becomes a serious problem when the parasite sucks the host dry or causes serious systemic problems. I don't think that having a parasite makes me a cow, though!
    Lol, no I don't think you're a cow, I'm expressing the mentality of the privileged elites. Work can be extremely rewarding.

  15. #10415
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,967
    the problem with capitalism is you eventually run out of your parent's money

  16. #10416
    Doesn't it seem like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez's win has actually had a profound effect on discourse? Immediately after she won, a few establishment figures in the Democratic Party tried to downplay the significance of the win by attributing it to demographics rather than her ideas/policy proposals. But it seems that her win was actually an inflection point, and that in its wake, many now take for granted that the Democrats need to adopt a more aggressive leftist economic agenda. There seems to be growing recognition that this is the future of the party.
    Last edited by Eversor; 07-29-2018 at 02:48 PM.

  17. #10417
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    the problem with capitalism is you eventually run out of your parent's money
    And that's when you enter the PhD program.

  18. #10418
    It's Stuart, Martha Stuart
    Posts
    7,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    The problem with capitalism is that it is designed to set apart a permanent, autocratic class of economic decision-makers.
    So what? Economic decisions are a really hard class of problems. I sure as hell don't want it decided democratically. I think if you have a very small number of very wealthy people who make highly effective economic decisions, and are incapable of consuming the vast majority of their wealth, than that's not really an issue in terms of economic fairness, because at the end of the day, consumption is a much better metric for economic quality than wealth.



    I think the real issue is the value of labor vs. capital, which is sort of technology dependent. In the long term labor should usually be more valuable, but there's a lot of stuff that can mess that up over the short term, like poor workforce mobility. If capital gets to valuable, then you get into issues with capital over-investment and that can cause issues.
    Last edited by Obi_Kwiet; 07-29-2018 at 04:42 PM.

  19. #10419
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Obi_Kwiet View Post
    So what? Economic decisions are a really hard class of problems. I sure as hell don't want it decided democratically. I think if you have a very small number of very wealthy people who make highly effective economic decisions, and are incapable of consuming the vast majority of their wealth, than that's not really an issue in terms of economic fairness, because at the end of the day, consumption is a much better metric for economic quality than wealth.
    Which problems in society are easy enough that you wouldn’t prefer them solved by a hereditary dictatorship?

    I think the real issue is the value of labor vs. capital, which is sort of technology dependent. In the long term labor should usually be more valuable, but there's a lot of stuff that can mess that up over the short term, like poor workforce mobility. If capital gets to valuable, then you get into issues with capital over-investment and that can cause issues.
    I don’t think I understand this part of your post. Could you clarify please? It’s not obvious to me why labor should be more valuable in the long term, or that capital appreciation causes over investment (e.g. vs. too much savings).

  20. #10420
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,388
    At the risk of being too snippy, I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to the fact that Obi-Kwiets first paragraph could be used equally well to justify both capitalism and Stalinist central planning.

  21. #10421
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Obi_Kwiet View Post
    So what? Economic decisions are a really hard class of problems. I sure as hell don't want it decided democratically. I think if you have a very small number of very wealthy people who make highly effective economic decisions, and are incapable of consuming the vast majority of their wealth, than that's not really an issue in terms of economic fairness, because at the end of the day, consumption is a much better metric for economic quality than wealth.
    this can be taken to mean you're an anti-democratic totalitarian, so long as the people have enough crap. i don't think you genuinely think that's a better society, because that's some extremely anti-liberal, pro-monarchist thought in the most literal sense.

    better for me not to have wealth? what do you think i am, a cuck?

  22. #10422
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,967
    the funny thing is, monarchists aren't wrong in some sense. countries that had a benevolent dictator, who truly worked their hardest for the benefit of their country, can sometimes be more efficient than democratic systems. bismarck comes to mind, maybe napoleon. however, despite there being some real examples of historically great dictators, modern history showed that people thrived and did better in more liberal and democratic societies overall. because people like bismarck and napoleon are much the exception, and are also martial in a way that doesn't exist anymore. the rule for dicatators is being an inefficient, expensive moron. enrique iv.

    and we don't even have higher-minded rulers like napoleon today. today's ruling class are some of the most pathetic rulers in history. elon musk? lol

  23. #10423
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    Doesn't it seem like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez's win has actually had a profound effect on discourse? Immediately after she won, a few establishment figures in the Democratic Party tried to downplay the significance of the win by attributing it to demographics rather than her ideas/policy proposals. But it seems that her win was actually an inflection point, and that in its wake, many now take for granted that the Democrats need to adopt a more aggressive leftist economic agenda. There seems to be growing recognition that this is the future of the party.
    I think so. I think it opened up a surge of people who really, genuinely want to push the Democrats to the left and get concessions on issues like healthcare and the minimum wage. And now all of these topics are being forcefully discussed all over the place.

  24. #10424
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    Also, I feel the comment section of most websites I visit are about as chaotic, morbid, and overpopulated as any slaughterhouse.
    I think of the internet as one big charnel ground
    Epstein didn't kill himself.

  25. #10425
    Quote Originally Posted by Spook View Post
    I think of the internet as one big charnel ground
    Does this mean that, in having recently upgraded your property to connect to the internet, you are in fact now living in a charnel house?

  26. #10426
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    the funny thing is, monarchists aren't wrong in some sense. countries that had a benevolent dictator, who truly worked their hardest for the benefit of their country, can sometimes be more efficient than democratic systems.
    lol, this is what Hans-Hermann Hoppe thinks

  27. #10427
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    lol, this is what Hans-Hermann Hoppe thinks
    Id almost certainly argue with him irl then challenge him to arm wrestling

  28. #10428
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,967
    I need a big strong bull with a big dick to pleasure my wife because I'm incapable of doing it myself.

    I need a smart, talented owner with a big ego to run my life because I'm incapable of doing it myself.

    Spot the difference.

    No offense to anyone's sexual preferences. I don't want to yuck anyone's yum, my point is purely rhetorical.

  29. #10429
    At the risk of characterizing my own qualities, that post contains just enough complexity and cringe in convex combination that I cannot completely comprehend it. I'm a cuck!

  30. #10430
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    Does this mean that, in having recently upgraded your property to connect to the internet, you are in fact now living in a charnel house?
    The whole of the Universe is a charnel house. I like to think of my place as the catacombs from King's Quest VI now.
    Epstein didn't kill himself.

  31. #10431
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    At the risk of characterizing my own qualities, that post contains just enough complexity and cringe in convex combination that I cannot completely comprehend it. I'm a cuck!
    convex stuff isn't complicated topologically. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  32. #10432
    I'm not talking about topology.

  33. #10433
    Orange is a convex combination of red and yellow.

    Mediocre is a convex combination of excellent and poor.

    Your post is a convex combination of complexity and cringe ⇒ I can't bring myself to read it.

  34. #10434
    super cringe tbh
    Epstein didn't kill himself.

  35. #10435
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,388
    I can read your post implies your post is a linear combination of complexity and cringe with coefficients either not all positive or summing to 1.

  36. #10436
    lol, ****. I may have left out some parentheses.

    At any rate, I only said convex instead of linear because of the need to alliterate.

  37. #10437
    I am actually still modestly interested in understanding what Reid wrote actually means, but I still can't bring myself to look at it long enough to find out. It must be that darn Cringe-Comprehension Uncertainty Principle fouling up my day, yet again.

  38. #10438
    Dr. Cringenberg: "I can't read your post to see if the cuck is dead or alive, because I am covering my eyes!"

  39. #10439
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    I am actually still modestly interested in understanding what Reid wrote actually means,
    He's saying that convex sets are topologically straightforward and easy to understand.

  40. #10440
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,388
    Given subset S of R^n, S is convex if and only if for all x,y in S, the line xy is a subset of S.
    The set generated by all convex combinations of a set of points in R^n is a convex subset of R^n.
    The set generated by a convex combination of a subset of those ^ points is a convex subset of that ^ convex subset.
    The intersection of convex sets is convex.

    There, now you know everything about convex topology.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •