Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 245

On July 06 2020 18:55 Liquid`Drone wrote: Like, Baal, just try to answer the following question. Why do you think a person like myself is not a fan of capitalism? For reference, I live a life of reasonable success, monetary and otherwise, in one of the world's wealthiest countries. My parents are also pretty wealthy, and I've never really lacked for anything. In terms of the global hierarchy, I'm pretty damn far up. Why does a person like myself oppose the system through which I am thriving?

You make it sound like you are an actually successful Norwegian like Iop or something. Anyway I suspect it has something to do with you being a classic example of a "Beta male" lol.

lol an incel using 'beta male' is funny.

I said moderately successful, which is just that. But you can swap me with my brother, he's more of a leftist than I am and like top 1% income earners.

On July 06 2020 22:12 Liquid`Drone wrote: lol an incel using 'beta male' is funny. I said moderately successful, which is just that. But you can swap me with my brother, he's more of a leftist than I am and like top 1% income earners.

lol. I love this shit. look if i had a choice between my sex life and yours, i'd probably shoot my self in the fucking face before i picked yours.

but I am not the one on interrogation here. you asked a question, and I am trying to point out relevant facts to that question. You can't answer the question "why you are a leftist//dislike capitalism" without delving into your dumbfuck mind and the fact is that ,You clearly exhibit the qualities of a beta male. This is absolutely relevant to the discussion here, and your brother is not a fair example, since we don't know anything about him. i'm sure I could figure out why he was being a leftist if we had more information.

Chill dude, we all know you probably fuck all the hottest girls at least twice a day. We acknowledge your alpha status. We can all tell you're alpha by the amount of validation you require.

Its not about how much money you make, its about how much you save

top-x % of income earners is such a gross way to define success.

Drone spends his time doing something useful and has the potential to live a good life. That is highly successful.

If Pooruser goes into research and helps thousands even millions of people that is highly successful.

If Loco figures out a way to live a good life without employment or hierarchies that may be the most successful out of all of us.

Then there is someone like tjbentham that is probably retired if he wants to be. It's hard to argue against that being successful. Poker is rather benign compared to things like corporate law, advertising executive, or anything in the financial sector. Anyone bragging about being successful in the ladder three I would look at as a massive fail. Poker braggarts are not that much better but at least they don't have a boss or subordinates and are mostly just parasitic to ultra wealthy people.

I would even say you are successful hiems as long as you are not an IT guy at a corporate law firm, ad agency, or financial company. Like real potential to live a good life depending on how you spend your time, effort, and resources.

On July 07 2020 01:56 VanDerMeyde wrote: Its not about how much money you make, its about how much you save

Dave Ramsay will not save you from death.

Neither will money.

Go for a walk in a cemetery.

On July 06 2020 09:25 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm not opposed to nuclear but having watched this debate definitely made it less of a clear cut choice and your framing of leftists are not concerned with the environment but actually just pretend to be concerned with the environment so they can end the free market is an incredibly dumb take. Again, one that has been addressed before, but it seems like you either don't remember or don't care. either way it makes engaging with you feel pretty pointless.

If you are not opposed to nuclear then you are not the kind of leftist I'm talking about, I'm talking about the ones who oppose it because they know it would maintain the socio-economical status quo. That is where I would accuse them of not truly caring about it, but it just happened to align with their worldview so they are opportunists.

I think energy production if the crux of human turnmoil It's a topic that interests me and It's very likely in more informed about it than most of you yet to rationally and not dogmatically oppose nuclear you would require a much more profound understanding of the topic than anybody in this site... to put it in poker terms, there are only two kinds of GTO bashers... the ones who understand it better than anybody else, and the Phil Hellmuths.

I agree its not a super clear cut choice as in anything of this complexity, yet it should be the main talking point when we are talking about phasing out CO2, yet it isn't, dogma prevails and you see countries like Germany decomissoning nuclear plants to build coal plants increasing their CO2 footprint while being neighbords to France who produces 80% of its energy with nuclear.

*Edit: I watched the debate you posted, I'd like to know what are the strongest points in there against nuclear to discuss them because I didn't feel the anti-nuclear side made very poor arguments.

On July 06 2020 18:55 Liquid`Drone wrote: Like, Baal, just try to answer the following question. Why do you think a person like myself is not a fan of capitalism? For reference, I live a life of reasonable success, monetary and otherwise, in one of the world's wealthiest countries. My parents are also pretty wealthy, and I've never really lacked for anything. In terms of the global hierarchy, I'm pretty damn far up. Why does a person like myself oppose the system through which I am thriving?

Because you are an easy going type B type personality, you are generally selfless and very empathetic, you live in the most functional and civil society in the world where you've witnessed the good of social focused policies yet experienced little to none of its wrongs and you see the rot in capitalist overconsuming american society.

I think you overestimate the coorelation between wealth and political ideology, Antifa isnt a blue collar working class movement, its mostly college kids, in my experience the poor working class likes the market as long as they are given a fair shot to have a better life and provide an even better opportunity to their kids, but most often the game is rigged, and they know so they never get this shot, and that builds up resentment which leaves a population ripe for left-wing indoctrination as It's happened many times.

The "antithesis" to you'r life experience would be a socialism refugee and you won't see a clearer example of what I said than in them, you will see their rabid deside for this fair shot, for an opportunity that they were systemiatically denied.

On July 06 2020 22:58 Spitfiree wrote: Chill dude, we all know you probably fuck all the hottest girls at least twice a day. We acknowledge your alpha status. We can all tell you're alpha by the amount of validation you require.

hahaha

On July 06 2020 18:55 Liquid`Drone wrote: Like, Baal, just try to answer the following question. Why do you think a person like myself is not a fan of capitalism? For reference, I live a life of reasonable success, monetary and otherwise, in one of the world's wealthiest countries. My parents are also pretty wealthy, and I've never really lacked for anything. In terms of the global hierarchy, I'm pretty damn far up. Why does a person like myself oppose the system through which I am thriving?

I'd say it's just simply applying the "If the shoe were on the other foot" doctrine. You realize that it's only by sheer luck that you were born into the life you have so you support policies as though you might not have been so fortunate.

Loco is unsurprisingly quiet about CHAZ lol

On July 07 2020 02:45 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On July 06 2020 09:25 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm not opposed to nuclear but having watched this debate definitely made it less of a clear cut choice and your framing of leftists are not concerned with the environment but actually just pretend to be concerned with the environment so they can end the free market is an incredibly dumb take. Again, one that has been addressed before, but it seems like you either don't remember or don't care. either way it makes engaging with you feel pretty pointless. If you are not opposed to nuclear then you are not the king of leftist I'm talking about, I'm talking about the ones who oppose it because they know it would maintain the socio-economical status quo. That is where I would accuse them of not truly caring about it, but it just happened to align with their worldview so they are opportunists. I think energy production if the crux of human turnmoil It's a topic that interests me and It's very likely in more informed about it than most of you yet to rationally and not dogmatically oppose nuclear you would require a much more profound understanding of the topic than anybody in this site... to put it in poker terms, there are only two kinds of GTO bashers... the ones who understand it better than anybody else, and the Phil Hellmuths. I agree its not a super clear cut choice as in anything of this complexity, yet it should be the main talking point when we are talking about phasing out CO2, yet it isn't, dogma prevails and you see countries like Germany decomissoning nuclear plants to build coal plants increasing their CO2 footprint while being neighbords to France who produces 80% of its energy with nuclear. *Edit: I watched the debate you posted, I'd like to know what are the strongest points in there against nuclear to discuss them because I didn't feel the anti-nuclear side made very poor arguments.

People aren't opposed to nuclear because it would maintain the socio-economical status quo. That is a different issue altogether. The traditional leftist is opposed to nuclear because of a) not knowing how to deal with the waste (so it's another 'push this problem onto future generations') b) fear of 'meltdowns' c) association with nuclear weapons. I think a rather consistent pattern when comparing the left and right wing is that leftists are more concerned with future generations (and less techno-optimistic) than right wingers are, which shows itself in all of these three. Now, you might argue that especially point b and to a lesser degree point c are irrational, (I largely agree - and from an environmentalist point of view Chernobyl seems to indicate that meltdowns might not be all that bad, because an area being too radioactively contaminated for humans to inhabit actually makes animal life thrive. :D ) Personally, I think that while a) is a very real issue, the problems associated with climate change are by several magnitudes bigger problems, so I'd be willing to deal with it.

However, from that debate (and while I didn't watch the entire nuclear sucks change my mind video from Loco, I watched part of it, so adding some from that too), the strongest points against nuclear are rooted in the time frame required to implement nuclear and that it's not as economically viable as renewables are. Building a functional nuclear plant seems to take between 6 and 10 years (normally closer to 10 with average above 8), while renewables can be constructed in between 1 and 3 years. That is, after the planning of where to build and getting it through the political process. So even assuming that we collectively decided to lets go with nuclear now, the time frame for how quickly we need to reduce emissions would close before nuclear power would supply us with that power. And while I'm honestly not too in the weeds regarding the economic side of it, it seems like so much R&D is going into renewables that they have vastly improved in the past decade and that they are continuously improving at a very fast pace; and it seems like investment firms are betting on renewables over nuclear. The 'security' elements (which is the traditional leftist counter argument to nuclear) is hardly even featured in the debate, because it seems irrelevant; nuclear loses vs renewables from a capitalist perspective, too.

If you consequently want to argue that 'this just means we should have gone with nuclear 20-30 years ago, leftists have doomed us all' then a) I think the fear of meltdowns following Chernobyl was much more rational than it is today and b) that's irrelevant when deciding future policy.

All this said, I really am not opposed to nuclear as part of a future strategy for phasing out fossil fuels. I'm sure it can have an important role to play. My issues are with the misattribution of leftist motivation for opposing it, trying to make it about something clandestine sinister stuff instead of part differences in priorities and part ignorance. (Or even, part having more knowledge than either of us do- in the case of the people involved in the linked debates. )

On July 07 2020 02:17 RiKD wrote: Show nested quote + On July 07 2020 01:56 VanDerMeyde wrote: Its not about how much money you make, its about how much you save Dave Ramsay will not save you from death. Neither will money. Go for a walk in a cemetery.

ah

On July 07 2020 02:12 RiKD wrote: top-x % of income earners is such a gross way to define success. Drone spends his time doing something useful and has the potential to live a good life. That is highly successful. If Pooruser goes into research and helps thousands even millions of people that is highly successful. If Loco figures out a way to live a good life without employment or hierarchies that may be the most successful out of all of us. Then there is someone like tjbentham that is probably retired if he wants to be. It's hard to argue against that being successful. Poker is rather benign compared to things like corporate law, advertising executive, or anything in the financial sector. Anyone bragging about being successful in the ladder three I would look at as a massive fail. Poker braggarts are not that much better but at least they don't have a boss or subordinates and are mostly just parasitic to ultra wealthy people. I would even say you are successful hiems as long as you are not an IT guy at a corporate law firm, ad agency, or financial company. Like real potential to live a good life depending on how you spend your time, effort, and resources.

Most "successful" man alive?

On July 07 2020 18:27 RiKD wrote: Most "successful" man alive?

You have this misconception that if there was some kind of UBI, people would start doing things they really love to do and enjoy life to the fullest with their newly acquired freedom. This is not true. People don't start growing vegetables, they don't start exercising more, they don't start reading or painting more. Most people will simply do nothing and get depressed. Finland is a great example of this. The reason why the govt wants people to stop living on benefits is not because they want the rich to get richer, it's because these people will deteriorate and eventually turn to the bottle and cost shit loads to the society with all the mental health problems etc what "freedom" causes. "Freedom" is cancer.

On July 07 2020 18:27 RiKD wrote: Most "successful" man alive?

I hear you can make a modest living without your labor being exploited through employment and all you need is a piece of cardboard, a sharpie, and a street corner. I don't see you as someone that has any moral qualms about leeching off the hard work of others. You clearly weren't happy being a wage slave at whole foods. Why not be your own boss and live the simple life of a common beggar?

Amazing that in the midst of a global pandemic where the ultra wealthy have (once again) been bailed out there are still people who are convinced by the narrative that homeless people and the unemployed are the leeches in this society.


You know something else? Even the Ayn Rand Institute got a bailout. Guess it was to be expected from a group that is named after a failed philosopher who elevated selfishness and independence from government, meanwhile she accepted government benefits later in her life. That's Libertarianism for you.