This is about the only good reply because it’s honest. Very based.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 949
- Joined
- 11 mo. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 949
- Joined
- 11 mo. ago
Ok I understand that you, like me are a chimp, but we need to try to overcome tribalism as much as we can. By that I mean stop thinking that anyone belongs to the opposite tribe of yours simply because they don’t subscribe to dogmatic political agendas. I’m not taking any side except the side of logic and reasoning. Prohibiting or restricting speech or ideas has never stopped them from spreading or otherwise gaining traction if the ground for them is fertile. So what’s even the point? We used to have the KKK on tv and through the sheer idiocy of their ideas they still failed as a political organization.
Invest your energies on fomenting curiosity and truth seeking in people not on removing “harmful” speech. Those are arbitrary labels that we can apply to anything, as Trump et all are showing.
I don’t know that I believe in that sort of paternalistic attitude what I do know is that Google et al have no business dictating what is or isn’t misinformation. It’s a double edged blade.
People will believe whatever they want to believe, you cannot suppress whatever you believe is misinformation. There are lots of things for which there is no apodictic certainty that gets passed of as fact and no one questions it or calls it misinformation.
Also it’s not that it wasn’t a perfect solution. It’s that it is not a solution at all. It actively made things worse in fact.
People in the streets say crazier shit every day, are you also gonna stop them from saying it? Fuck that man, the audience is the one that needs to learn to be discerning.
Fuck outta here with this fuckhead logic.
This is not a bad thing actually. “Deplatforming” idiots clearly did not stop their ideas from spreading so might as well allow people to say whatever inane shit they want instead of getting them riled up for “censorship”.
I know it’s not real censorship but technicalities hardly matters. What matters is how people feel.
Two decades of “just learn to code bro”, will do that to a profession.
It’s weird that all countries have the same policies if they are so bad. But here’s the fact: the stronger your safety nets, the more difficult do you have to make immigration lest the system collapse. And allowing immigrants that cannot access the safety nets is a sure fire way to increase your crime rate because now you have a underclass that wouldn’t have existed. So yes the US should have laxer immigration policies than other countries, but not full blown open borders. Not unless there is a practical reason to do so, which there isn’t.
I never said it was impossible, I said we need to slow walk it because it can’t be radical, not unless you are willing to commit literal murder. I’d advocate for accelerationism first before I advocate for killing people who oppose you ideologically.
True we have the resources in theory. The problem is that the necessary structural change to do that right now is so great that it can only be done by literally nuking civilization out of existence and starting over again. Seeing as that might not actually be a good option, we need to slow walk it because the other ways have been tried and they don’t end well
And yes I’m exclusionary because everyone else is. I would love to hop on a plane and move to somewhere in Spain right now. But guess what? They don’t make it that easy. That’s what I meant earlier when I said something about everyone being on the same legal framework. I couldn’t find th right words but the gist is that unless every country on earth has open borders then no country on earth should have open borders.
I never said the opposite. But social nets have their limits because resources are not infinite. First we need to make sure the material needs of our people are met before we can help others. I don’t understand how this is a controversial thing to say.
Wow my guy, just wow. Bravo, you’ve turned this into an art.
Then what is it? Because it sure as fuck doesn’t sound right wing but someone just called me right wing because I agree in some points with MAGA. 🤣
Right there it says that there are other measures that led to the reduction in poverty. Here’s my thing, if you increase the minimum wage, don’t change the definition or the line at which someone is considered to be living in poverty, and run a census the next day poverty will appear to have been reduced by a lot because everyone is now making the increased minimum wage yay! However if there’s inflation, in a few more months we might be back to where we were in the first place in real terms, however unless you change the line in which poverty begins, you will still be able to clam that you decreased poverty. Poverty is not about the money someone is making, but rather how much what they make buys.
I’m in favor of social nets but, again, I dont see compelling evidence that raising minimum wage is anything but a placebo.
- I don’t think that, but I do know that if 1 singe American is having a hard time while we are helping 1 illegal immigrant, then we are doing something wrong and it will breed resentment.
- You are a bad faith argumenter. I’ve never said science is fake, I’ve said that social science (though it also happens in the natural sciences to a lesser degree) is not really science, not with any degree of certainty as physics etc. here’s a little summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis?wprov=sfti1
but searching in Google Scholar or JSTOR will bring up many many studies about the problem. So when people say “the science backs this” using a social science study that is not replicable, it takes two brain cells to realize that no, there is no science backing such a claim.
- Yes I also meant farms which are also very often corporations. And that’s what I said in my very first comment, the Trump administration says a lot of things that are right (they say a lot more that are wrong but they are not wrong about everything ), but they use it to serve their interests instead of actually solving the problems. Farmers are the biggest enemies of any of the solutions to many of the problems in America, we should nationalize the whole industry at this point because it cannot exist without government subsidies and yet they use the money to lobby against environmental and immigration reforms. They like the status quo. But if you don’t want to nationalize them we can stop subsidizing them and simply subsidize their wages directly in such a way that they can pay living wages instead of relying on immigrant labor.
But again you are arguing in bad faith and I do not think that you have any coherent ideology that isn’t “oppose everything the other guys do”.
Fascism has an established definition. Hell there’s a literal manifesto
Free open borders doesn’t work unless everyone, literally everyone is working on the same legal framework . This could be good long term project for humanity but as it stands right now now, national divisions matter. You can’t have people that weren’t born here overwhelming our nation and getting aid when our own people are suffering economic hardship. The problem with people like you is that you want everything now, and that’s not possible except through extreme violence and often ends up not solving the problems. I would love to be able to remake the system from the top down, but we know that never ends right.
I don’t think science is bullshit, I think non reroducible experiments are not science. I love science, but the social sciences in the present exist in the same stage of development as medicine was in the Middle Ages. This is a provable fact. Universities need to be centers of knowledge again and not job training centers.
Like someone pointed out, I said corporations are living off the government tit, that’s a fact. I would prefer if the tit was feeding us instead. I think I made it very clear that I’m pro social safety nets.
Exactly. I think government and corporations exist to generate wealth to benefit society. Right now it exists to benefit corporations.
I identify as a fascist communist that leans libertarian
I’m open to changing my mind, but you need proof rather than just saying that I’m incorrect. I have yet to see compelling evidence that raising minimum wage makes any difference at all in the long term. A lot of studies have been made to prove that it doesn’t cause job loss but none that prove that it changes the levels of inequality or pulls people out of poverty in real economic terms.
Centrism doesn’t mean sitting on a fence. It means most of the time understanding that both sides are right and wrong at the same time, I often see the problem identified correctly but the solution that is prescribed is absolutely incorrect.
Here are some centrist positions.
We need to stop unfettered immigration, so closing the borders is great, locking up and kicking out immigrants who have committed legal offenses is good, and we should expedite that process but we shouldn’t be kidnapping or profiling people. We shouldn’t be giving economic assistance to illegal immigrants. I know it doesn’t happen at the federal level but it does happen at the state level.
Banning guns won’t solve the violence problem, guns don’t kill people people kill people. American violence is caused by inequality and lack of mental healthcare. Solve that instead of taking guns away.
We should have higher taxes, universal healthcare and stronger safety nets but also much less regulation because most of it is actually designed to protect the incumbent corporations. Free the markets as much as possible, but never bail out a single corporation that fails, bail out the employees.
Increasing the minimum wage does nothing.
Instead of relying on underpaid immigrant labor the US should stop giving cash and tax subsidies to farmers and instead directly subsidize their wages by paying the employees directly. This is my middle of the road solution, we should actually consider nationalization of farms. One of the few things where that could work right now because I think nationalization in general leads to terrible mismanagement. But farms are already inefficient, corrupt and mismanaged and also living on the government tits so we might as well.
Justifying things as “scientific” when the science is social science and the results are not reproducible is intellectually dishonest, and is rampant in discourse about various topics nowadays. The academia brought upon themselves the mistrust they have garnered. This is good because universities have become job training centers and they were never meant to be that, so maybe we’re due for a little creative destruction.
I could continue, but I got shit to do.
If I’m to believe that I need to protect people from “bad” ideas and that they are not capable of discerning right from wrong, false from truth, them I will also have to believe that democracy itself is wrong because clearly we cannot allow these monkeys to make any decisions. Now while my heart of hearts might believe this to be true, I do not have apodictic certainty in that and instead I truly believe that education can make people take better decisions and help them discern right from wrong. As such I can never believe in labeling speech as allowed or not allowed, rather I would like to invest my energies into fostering curiosity, truth seeking and knowledge as perhaps the highest human virtues. So instead of burying speech we should be educating kids.
Also X kind of proves my point, the platform is alive but much less relevant than before. This is the bad ideas discrediting themselves in action.