Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 219

corporations undermine markets as an economic institution. I don't think a free market society would have corporations due to the information asymetry they create. An example is google creating their whole surveillience apparatus in secret. Even if we had good journalism, you have to deal with the fact that companies make their decisions in secret. There are a lot of logical inconsisties in the view that free markets can coexist with capitalism, im just pointing out one. As for tech, they monopolize very easily due to the network effect, similar to railroads in the 19th century. And they make most of their money off providing something people don't want at zero cost. The definition of efficiency in economic theory is providing what people want at the least possible cost. The big tech companies especially can't really be seen as something that's part of a free market system.

On May 23 2020 01:03 Spitfiree wrote: That question and your implied choice literally changes nothing in the grand scheme of things. The whole ' debate' came from the inability of the free market to do shit against corporations. The fact that you're in the internet, your data is gathered and sold to the highest bidder where you're getting a profile created to abuse your cognitive behaviour in order to make you spend money on shit you don't need, that is being produced and transported by underpaid workers that don't even get basic protection gear during a pandemic is a big fat joke. You guys are completely clueless on the influence and power of tech giants, there has never been anything as powerful in terms of businesses. Your everyday life is drawn by them on many levels. There is literally zero chance of you boycotting them unless you move into a bunker in the woods. Also, good luck telling people to switch over from the most convenient option of services they have, they definitely give two fucks about some unethical conduct that doesn't directly impact their daily lives. There is evidence for the majority of them doing insanely unethical things, yet you're here talking about Bezos shooting your family and executing revenge as a metaphor of the ' hand of the market' ... get the fuck out seriously. edit: and don't get me wrong, tech companies have improved our lives to a level that would've been unimaginable just 20-30 years ago, but that is not the point.

In case you haven't noticed like 99% of the posts on this forum are ideas that wouldn't work in the real world but it doesn't seem to stop Loco and Baal arguing back and forth about them.

Besides, who cares how the debate started. Have you never heard of someone suing somebody and seeking $1 in damages? Obviously a meaningless amount that has no impact on anybody but it's about the principle. I don't care what action Loco takes against Bezos as long as it's something. When someone shits in your mouth you don't swallow it and ask for seconds.

On May 23 2020 04:14 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On May 23 2020 01:03 Spitfiree wrote: That question and your implied choice literally changes nothing in the grand scheme of things. The whole ' debate' came from the inability of the free market to do shit against corporations. The fact that you're in the internet, your data is gathered and sold to the highest bidder where you're getting a profile created to abuse your cognitive behaviour in order to make you spend money on shit you don't need, that is being produced and transported by underpaid workers that don't even get basic protection gear during a pandemic is a big fat joke. You guys are completely clueless on the influence and power of tech giants, there has never been anything as powerful in terms of businesses. Your everyday life is drawn by them on many levels. There is literally zero chance of you boycotting them unless you move into a bunker in the woods. Also, good luck telling people to switch over from the most convenient option of services they have, they definitely give two fucks about some unethical conduct that doesn't directly impact their daily lives. There is evidence for the majority of them doing insanely unethical things, yet you're here talking about Bezos shooting your family and executing revenge as a metaphor of the ' hand of the market' ... get the fuck out seriously. edit: and don't get me wrong, tech companies have improved our lives to a level that would've been unimaginable just 20-30 years ago, but that is not the point. In case you haven't noticed like 99% of the posts on this forum are ideas that wouldn't work in the real world but it doesn't seem to stop Loco and Baal arguing back and forth about them. Besides, who cares how the debate started. Have you never heard of someone suing somebody and seeking $1 in damages? Obviously a meaningless amount that has no impact on anybody but it's about the principle. I don't care what action Loco takes against Bezos as long as it's something. When someone shits in your mouth you don't swallow it and ask for seconds.

There is a deep irony here. On one hand, you claim (without any argumentation or empirical data) that my political philosophy--which is based on my principles-- is inapplicable or ineffectual. Meanwhile, it is ok for you to have (provably) ineffectual actions against tyranny, justified by the fact that you have principles.

I can see how you might see it that way, but at no point was I arguing for "asking for seconds": I was arguing against the illusion of meaningful resistance. Obviously, as an anarchist, my political philosophy seeks the best methods of meaningful resistance, even if they don't succeed. Hence why I'm talking about abandoning those illusions and arguing in favor of the necessity of collective efforts to challenge institutional/ideological problems. Piracy is also about not contributing to bad economic actors, and it doesn't come at a personal cost.

Our disagreement is one concerning what we value and our respective strategies or tactics, it's not that I advocate for subservience and you advocate for "doing something".

Here's a parallel, since I'm reading a story on this lately: if you are kidnapped by someone who is much more powerful than you, and who has tied you up/locked you up somewhere, and raped you every day, at some point, if you are being smart about it, you'd stop fighting it. You'd start thinking of what it is you have to do to survive day by day and strategize about what it is you could do in the longer term to get away; i.e. gain their trust so that at some point they grant you more freedom, manipulate the person by feigning stockholm syndrome, etc. It wouldn't be a sign of weakness or giving up not to fight without results forever, it would simply be the logical thing to do to abandon what doesn't work.

On May 23 2020 04:14 blackjacki2 wrote: In case you haven't noticed like 99% of the posts on this forum are ideas that wouldn't work in the real world but it doesn't seem to stop Loco and Baal arguing back and forth about them. Besides, who cares how the debate started. Have you never heard of someone suing somebody and seeking $1 in damages? Obviously a meaningless amount that has no impact on anybody but it's about the principle. I don't care what action Loco takes against Bezos as long as it's something. When someone shits in your mouth you don't swallow it and ask for seconds.

I've had my fair share of 'what do you do in principle' talks and they all imply some bullshit black and white situations fueled by the person's ego.

I think the whole principle bullshit scenarios are rooted in society due to religion and martyrs, Jesus on the cross-type of shit, while in reality, those are all mostly anecdotes. If you want to see people that made an actual impact, do you think they didn't adjust and go against their principles if no other option was present? There's a good Einstein quote as an answer here " Try to not become a man of success but a man of value ".

Choosing to stay true to your principles even though they are doomed to failure is doing nothing other than satisfying your ego. Literally no one benefits. I also don't get the entire point of limiting one's self to specific ideas, as if ideas cannot be broadened or made obsolete. Clinging to obsolete ideas always works out well.

Principles are supposed to be 'fundamental truths' but in reality, the only fundamental truths we have are the laws of physics and that's about it. Everything made in society is basically an idea or a construct.

A basic human principle might be to not kill other humans, but in reality, the world won't really change on a grand scale if you or I die. This is not a fundamental truth. It's a principle we follow until there is some other 'truth' comes into play like two planes into two building leading to a war.

And if you want the tldr version: Your and Baal's statements are complete crap that only children believe. It's based on emotion and ego, which is ironical cause this is a poker forum.

On May 23 2020 00:22 blackjacki2 wrote: Certainly my family and my life matter more to me. If someone put a gun to my head and gave me a gun and said shoot my family member or shoot a stranger or do nothing and both will be shot then I know what I would do. What would you do?

he would shoot his mother and buy any product the killer were selling

Although that thought experiment is removed from the previous situation, since there is no room for positive action there, I can confidently answer that I wouldn't categorically save my mom over someone else. She lives in chronic pain and her quality of life is very poor. She doesn't have much of anything to look forward to, while the stranger might. I also don't need to rely on her for my own survival, while the stranger might have people who need them. Factors like these would necessarily influence my decision. It's hard to know what you'd do for sure in such a situation, it would depend on numerous factors, but I could very well choose the stranger.

And yes, if the person who killed my mom had something to sell me that could be of help to me or others in some non-trivial way, I wouldn't rule out giving them money.

On May 24 2020 00:36 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On May 23 2020 04:14 blackjacki2 wrote: In case you haven't noticed like 99% of the posts on this forum are ideas that wouldn't work in the real world but it doesn't seem to stop Loco and Baal arguing back and forth about them. Besides, who cares how the debate started. Have you never heard of someone suing somebody and seeking $1 in damages? Obviously a meaningless amount that has no impact on anybody but it's about the principle. I don't care what action Loco takes against Bezos as long as it's something. When someone shits in your mouth you don't swallow it and ask for seconds. I've had my fair share of 'what do you do in principle' talks and they all imply some bullshit black and white situations fueled by the person's ego. I think the whole principle bullshit scenarios are rooted in society due to religion and martyrs, Jesus on the cross-type of shit, while in reality, those are all mostly anecdotes. If you want to see people that made an actual impact, do you think they didn't adjust and go against their principles if no other option was present? There's a good Einstein quote as an answer here " Try to not become a man of success but a man of value ". Choosing to stay true to your principles even though they are doomed to failure is doing nothing other than satisfying your ego. Literally no one benefits. I also don't get the entire point of limiting one's self to specific ideas, as if ideas cannot be broadened or made obsolete. Clinging to obsolete ideas always works out well. Principles are supposed to be 'fundamental truths' but in reality, the only fundamental truths we have are the laws of physics and that's about it. Everything made in society is basically an idea or a construct. A basic human principle might be to not kill other humans, but in reality, the world won't really change on a grand scale if you or I die. This is not a fundamental truth. It's a principle we follow until there is some other 'truth' comes into play like two planes into two building leading to a war. And if you want the tldr version: Your and Baal's statements are complete crap that only children believe. It's based on emotion and ego, which is ironical cause this is a poker forum.

Who has the bigger ego, the person that admits they have human character flaws that drive retribution and vigilante justice or the guy that admits he may shoot his own mother over a stranger just to prove to everyone how wonderfully rational and ethical he is

On May 24 2020 20:19 Loco wrote: Although that thought experiment is removed from the previous situation, since there is no room for positive action there, I can confidently answer that I wouldn't categorically save my mom over someone else. She lives in chronic pain and her quality of life is very poor. She doesn't have much of anything to look forward to, while the stranger might. I also don't need to rely on her for my own survival, while the stranger might have people who need them. Factors like these would necessarily influence my decision. It's hard to know what you'd do for sure in such a situation, it would depend on numerous factors, but I could very well choose the stranger. And yes, if the person who killed my mom had something to sell me that could be of help to me or others in some non-trivial way, I wouldn't rule out giving them money.

So repeat the thought experiment with your girlfriend or your dad or somebody else you love. Why did you choose to respond to the thought experiment as soon as Baal gave a specific example of mothers? Was it because you could use the caveats that your mother had chronic pain and low quality of life so you can answer the question without admitting you are full of shit? The fact is that there are people whose lives you apply more value to than a random stranger and if that's really not the case I feel sorry for you.

Also your analogy of being kidnapped makes no sense. Faking Stockholm syndrome while I strategize how to get out of a situation is different than just accepting there is nothing you can do and living with it.

I didn't respond before because I hadn't yet gone back to page 218 to read your post before he quoted it. I always go to the last page first and I had spent enough time writing my response to your post on this page for that day so I moved on.

But yeah, the same thing appies to my dad. Actually quite certain I'd pick the stranger. Yes, I'd choose my girlfriend over a stranger, but not simply because she's my girlfriend but because she's a good person, who then became my girlfriend, and because our lives are deeply intertwined, so it's not simply about love once you involve material circumstances. So if your thought experiment was "would you choose a good person over a random stranger?" it would be the same answer. But I think she should be saved on the basis of her having a lot to give to the world, not on the basis of her being with me.

On May 24 2020 22:27 blackjacki2 wrote: Who has the bigger ego, the person that admits they have human character flaws that drive retribution and vigilante justice or the guy that admits he may shoot his own mother over a stranger just to prove to everyone how wonderfully rational and ethical he is

This makes no sense whatsoever based on the previous discussion, the inference you're making is non-consequential. You can't simply reach a false conclusion and pretend you re making a point lmao

My decision would certainly be ego-based. I would make a decision that I can live with, so necessarily, it has to be. But I mean, at the end of the day, we can probably agree talk is cheap. Whether it's me saying I wouldn't be nepotistic or whether it is you guys saying, with great bravado, that you would engage in revenge, or that your market-based act of resistance is the only righteous one.

It's all besides the point though. The point is that it matters that massive inequality kills a lot of people. It shouldn't just matter when it threatens to kill your loved ones. I don't consent to my loved ones being hurt by the processes of neoliberal capitalism anymore than I consent to other people being hurt by those same processes. It would be hypocritical of me to move from one harmful market-based decision to another equally harmful market-based decision and pat myself on the back for it.

On May 24 2020 20:19 Loco wrote: Although that thought experiment is removed from the previous situation, since there is no room for positive action there, I can confidently answer that I wouldn't categorically save my mom over someone else. She lives in chronic pain and her quality of life is very poor. She doesn't have much of anything to look forward to, while the stranger might. I also don't need to rely on her for my own survival, while the stranger might have people who need them. Factors like these would necessarily influence my decision. It's hard to know what you'd do for sure in such a situation, it would depend on numerous factors, but I could very well choose the stranger. And yes, if the person who killed my mom had something to sell me that could be of help to me or others in some non-trivial way, I wouldn't rule out giving them money.

I said it as a joke but apparently you would get your mom killed and gargle the killer's balls for a kindle LOL.

I'm sure you ve all seen the Space X + Nasa launch

What you might've missed however is Trump's speech, who basically tried to hijack the event as something his administration should be prized with and then continued saying shit like "we ll soon have the greatest weapons ever imagined in history"

It's not every day that you can look at him and be surprised of how much dumber he actually is than you thought. The bar was already set pretty high

He also blamed Antifa for the riots/violence, which I thought was pretty nice. If we get the Antifa leaders (Nooo, they don't have leaders!) to Guantanamo Bay, we can interrogate them for information about their inner workings and finally eliminate yet another threat to American people.

Interrogating in the ways its done in Guantanamo Bay is completely pointless and doesn't benefit any of the parties. It's self-serving and pointless, unless you're a sociopath that just wants to cause maximum damage. Trump is an idiot that is trying to find a scapegoat for the social pressure that has been building up for the past 5 years due to the heavy polarization in the USA. The events in the US are not surprising to me at all.

Trump's "speeches" should be viewed as a form of entertainment and nothing else. The fact that such a clown is elected at the most powerful position on the planet is a testament to something completely different.


In fact, he s portraying the protestors as terrorists acknowledging any incoming violence towards them as something necessary and legitimate. There is some evidence that both far-right and far-left groups are part of the looters, scum like that is just opportunistic regardless of their political affiliations.

Anyway you're agreeing with this guy:

Don't feed the far right trolls please. And lol @ thinking a person on the far right could empathize with a disabled person. They just laugh along with Trump dude.

It would be delightful if antifa were added to the terrorist organization list but I think Trump has said that before and he did shit about it, so its probably beyond his reach.

Yes, it would be delightful if you could designate whoever you want to be a terrorist based on a loose association to a social movement (which is not an organization) and have their lives ruined by the state. A very libertarian/anarchist position indeed.

There is no legal mechanism by which you could designate "antifa" a terrorist organization, so it's not going to happen. What is happening instead is that Bill Barr said that the Justice Dept will use its network of FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces to identify & apprehend "criminal organizers and instigators" -- which means they can abduct you from your home if you are working to oppose the status quo. An anti-racist organizer has already been abducted (but thankfully released on bail) with no known cause.

Ted Cruz is also pushing for a bill which uses the words "antifa" and "leftist" interchangeably; so if this passes, you could be considered a terrorist for supporting environmental regulations, healthcare for all, LGBTQ rights, etc.

This is obviously great for "freedom" and has absolutely nothing to do with tyranny whatsoever.

And they were laughing at him for saying Mexico will pay for the wall... they might as well start building it themselves :D