For discussion of politics, religion, and other content not fitting the rest of the site
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 380)
BB Code
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PDF, PNG, TXT
  • Maximum file size allowed is 11742 KB.
  • Images greater than 260x260 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 427 unique user posts.
  • board catalog

File 151125413161.jpg - (109.84KB , 1280x720 , [aniKoi] Yuusha ni Narenakatta Ore wa Shibushibu S.jpg )
380 No. 380 [Edit]
What are some thing you believe that most people wouldn't agree with, or would possibly get upset about if you told them how you really feel about it?
121 posts omitted. Last 50 shown. Expand all images
>> No. 944 [Edit]
That's not really dependent on height but more on design and people back then just getting over it. Even peasants were still a bit shorter but they would be considered average height now.

It's harder to make a door large in a stone structure, you risk effecting the structural integrity by doing so particularly in a defensive structure(not to mention that having a small door in a defensive structure is a good thing as it makes it harder for an attacker to get through and easier to defend).
>> No. 947 [Edit]
No, I don't think so.
>> No. 948 [Edit]
It's not really a matter of what you think... The height of medieval people is well documented. It's not something that's hard to find out, you just measure skeletons.

Also, small doors actually don't cause the inconvenience you would assume. I used to live in a store house of an old(well not old relative to what we are talking about) farmhouse that had a very small door. In not long you forget it's even a thing.
>> No. 956 [Edit]
Azerbaijan is in the right.
>> No. 965 [Edit]
The confederate flag is OK, but not because of what it represents but because it looks cool
>> No. 976 [Edit]
Hiring an "escort" is a dumb decision and suggesting it to people is awful advice.
>> No. 988 [Edit]
Right-wing internet people pretty much always say whatever is convenient for them and ignore whatever isn't. They pretend to have principles, but they only act like they care about them situtationally. Many for example claim to value freedom of speech and no censorship and all of that shit. Really they only care about stuff they like being censored. They don't value free expression for its own sake and glady censor things they deem "degenerate". Liberals do this too, but the stuff they claim to value doesn't appeal to me in the first place, so it doesn't annoy me.

From bitchute, super free speech youtube alternative's guidelines:
>Any material that is sexually explicit, portraying sexual acts or showing sexual arousal is not permitted and will not be tolerated on the platform. If this describes your content, especially if it is of yourself, then do not post it on BitChute.

From UGETube, another free speech paradise video site's guidelines:
>Nudity or Sexual Content – We have a strict, no nudity policy. We report crimes to law enforcement.
>Grossly offensive or content that contains visuals which sole purpose is to “shock” or “disturb” may be removed. We do not encourage vulgar language.

Youtube is less restricted when it comes to these things, so where's that wild west, free for all that actually comes from freedom of expression? I definitely don't get that feeling when visting any of these "free" alternative sites.

Post edited on 4th Dec 2020, 5:49am
>> No. 989 [Edit]
The offline ones are like that too. I'm related to a few. They're extremely hypocritical. They convince themselves that everyone wants what they want, those who don't are evil. If things go their way it's justice, if they don't it's corruption. They lack the mental maturity to objective view conflicting arguments and form an opinion based on logic, separated from personal opinions and faction allegiances.
Of course to be fair I think a lot of left extremists can be like this too, which is why I don't take sides.
>> No. 990 [Edit]
I don't think Youtube allows nudity either and they demonetize people that swear too much. I actually don't mind as it's not really a freedom of speech issue, nudity is not freedom of speech. Even swearing is not freedom of speech, swearing is not an idea or a value or a fact. Removing swearing or nudity does not remove any argument or idea one could possibly have, even banning a nudist from making a video of himself nude does not censor his view, he would still be clear to state it and argue for it just not to act on it in that environment.

If you want porn I'm sure it can be found elsewhere.
>> No. 991 [Edit]
Youtube doesn't claim to be gun hoe about freedom. Nudity and swearing are expressions, they are also concepts. Freedom of speech is usually treated as synonymous with freedom of expression, but maybe there's some differences between the two. Lauding freedom of speech, but rejecting freedom of expression seems like a pointless position and nothing to be proud of to me. Pornography shouldn't be taken so lightly.
>> No. 992 [Edit]
So freedom of speech should include the freedom to defecate in public or murder whoever you like? That's freedom of expression too right?

There is a difference between being allowed to advocate for something and being allowed to do it.
>> No. 993 [Edit]
File 160717945990.jpg - (331.06KB , 960x1280 , 09da454a0983185bc6183028e3dc0926.jpg )
I see this dumb argument repeated all the time. The problem is that people express themself in a simplistic, self-serving way. What they shouldn't do is call themself free speech warriors or whatever and instead explain exactly what they care about in a way that's not a self-serving simplification. I wouldn't call myself a free speech advocate, but I do think people should be able to draw whatever they want and distribute it. That doesn't objectively and directly harm anybody or society beyond the value of the freedom. Posting a nude video of yourself on the internet is much the same.

If bitchute marketed itself as youtube with no politically biased censorship, that would be one thing. Instead they say they provide creators with "a service that they can use to flourish and express their ideas freely". Except those ideas don't include anything sexual. An animator couldn't make something sexual and post it there without breaking the rules. Platforms like bitchute end up being a boring, impotent enviroment for people to complain about a limited subject matter ad neaseum.
>> No. 994 [Edit]
You are talking about freedom of artistic expression not freedom of speech, again too different things but even then freedom of expression has a time and place.

Harm exists on a spectrum, you may feel that it doesn't cause harm but posting a carton image of a child doing incredibly inappropriate things with a dog would cause harm to the sensibilities of an 80 year old woman in the same way the defecating in public does not physically cause harm to you but you would find your sensibilities harmed and like wise having hardcore porn airing at 7am on a school morning right after a childrens cartoon would not go down well either. Even in a word with freedom of expression there would still be a time and a place for everything, a website or TV station can advocate freedom of speech but that does not mean they have to or even should allow porn.

Again, freedom of speech is not freedom of expression, it does not allow you to do whatever you like, it just allows you to argue for doing whatever you like.
>> No. 995 [Edit]
Defecating in public is a health hazard and somebody would have to clean it up. Most websites also aren't public spaces. They're run by private citizens, people can choose to enter them, and most are nonessential. Avoiding a website causes no meaningful inconvenience. A website where people can only argue for free expression is not a free expression site and they should not advertise themselves as such. I'm not a free expression advocate and I never claimed to be. Plus, none of them allow people to advocate for violence. You're missing my point.

Post edited on 5th Dec 2020, 11:07am
>> No. 996 [Edit]
People can choose to enter them butt somebody wanting to visit a website based on freedom of speech is not actually going to want to use one based on freedom of expression, this 80 year old grandma clearly isn't going to want too so you would end up with the views and opinions only of the people willing to put up with and be associated with that. It would not be a place for freedom of speech and the flow of ideas but would become a place for perverts and porn. Porn has no place in the flw of ideas and the ability for people to excersise freedom of speech.
>> No. 997 [Edit]
File 160721884719.jpg - (87.59KB , 850x708 , sample_f5ff4fc763ed68ce0ad0a11837bb2559.jpg )
>somebody wanting to visit a website based on freedom of speech is not actually going to want to use one based on freedom of expression
Imageboards would say otherwise. Also see Diogenes.

>Porn has no place in the flw of ideas and the ability for people to excercise freedom of speech.
Wrong. You've proved my initial point. Those websites are for self-satisfied people to circle jerk about their political viewpoints and how much they love "freedom" without actually accepting and exercising said freedom. I doubt too many 80 year old grannies use bitchute anyway. Based on your dismissal of porn, I can only guess that you're just another person who doesn't actually value people's ability to create and distribute it. If you don't outright hate porn, I bet you look down on it.

Post edited on 5th Dec 2020, 5:49pm
>> No. 998 [Edit]
Well image-boards tend to be used by certain kinds of people as the majority are put off by them which is my point. And even then they have rules.

It's not wrong. Porn itself is not an idea or information or anything like that any more than defecating in public is. Again, it's the right to do something vs the right to argue for being allowed to do something.

Funnily enough I actually don't have a problem with porn, I just think it has a place and that place has nothing to do with freedom of speech or services like bitchute. Sure, people should have the right to create whatever they want but that doesn't mean they should have the right to have it published wherever they like particularly when it is something that many would not want to see. Things like that should be published on dedicated platforms.
>> No. 999 [Edit]
People should communicate their values and ideas through their actions. If they don't, their values are superficial. Only arguing for something is useless. A website which allows porn has a million times more value in expressing the idea that porn should be allowed than one where it is not allowed regardless of anything else. It's like you're completely blind to what I've been saying. I guess you can't teach a blind man to see. There's no point in repeating myself any more.

Post edited on 5th Dec 2020, 7:04pm
>> No. 1000 [Edit]
Well that gets back to defecation and murder now doesn't it?

>A website which allows porn has a million times more value in expressing the idea that porn should be allowed

Because porn is allowed. It's not illegal to post it on the internet. Yet again going to murder, expressing the idea that murder should be legal by murdering is clearly not a good idea. In that case the idea would be to voice the opinion that it should be legal and argue why you think that is. I am not saying porn should be illegal, far from it, I am saying it has a place but that place is not on a site for freedom of speech, porn in and of itself has nothing to do with that.

Post edited on 5th Dec 2020, 7:38pm
>> No. 1001 [Edit]
>It's not illegal to post it on the internet.
Loli is illegal in plenty of countries.
>voice the opinion that it should be legal and argue why you think that is

The next time you try arguing with me, write greentext like that right away so I know to ignore you.

Post edited on 5th Dec 2020, 7:54pm
>> No. 1002 [Edit]
And being able to post it on a site like bit chute will not help now will it? It will just have bitchute get in legal issues, get blocked by certain countries and make normal people avoid it, it certainly is not going to make the countries that have made it illegal make it legal. Yes arguing for it is unlikely to change anything but freedom of speech has nothing to do with whether an argument is going to cause a change only that you are allowed to make the argument in the first place.

I knew it was you from the first post but I decided to humour you anyway in the hope you may see some kind of sense at some point about something and not just have your own personal wants dictate everything you think and say. I guess I am too kind for my own good.
>> No. 1003 [Edit]
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>Although the First Amendment refers specifically to the freedoms of speech and press, it in fact encompasses a wide range of expression beyond publications and the spoken word. All art forms — including plays, music, dance, film, literature, poetry and the visual arts — enjoy considerable First Amendment protection.
>The Court concluded that movies are an important vehicle for public opinion despite “the fact that they are designed to entertain as well as inform.” Quoting its 1948 opinion in Winters v. New York, the Court noted “the line between the informing and the entertaining is too elusive for the protection of that basic right (a free press). Everyone is familiar with instances of propaganda through fiction. What is one man’s amusement teaches another’s doctrine.”
>Clark also noted public concerns that movies may “possess a greater capacity for evil, particularly among the youth of the community,” but said this could not justify private restraint.
>In A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts (1966), the Supreme Court considered a state effort to have a sexually explicit book declared obscene and therefore banned under state law. Not so fast, the justices told the Bay State. Even a "patently offensive" pornographic work, the Court held, is still protected by the First Amendment.
>Like it or not, the debate about porn is always a debate about free speech. The hands of every would-be government censor are still bound by the First Amendment.
Nobody can objectively say whether something expresses an idea or not. If the government censoring porn is a violation of the first amendment which protects "freedom of speech", a website that doesn't allow porn cannot be said to posssess that same principle.

Post edited on 6th Dec 2020, 4:55am
>> No. 1012 [Edit]
I think applying modern values to historical situations is ridiculous, and you shouldn't even assume that modern liberal values are even the best way of looking at the world. And by modern liberal values, I mean the entire worldview that came out of the American and french revolutions and everything that resulted in the destruction of the monarchy in europe. For example, it is believed Thomas Jefferson took a slave mistress after his wife died, and had several children with her. It does not appear that she was poorly treated and their children were freed as he was good on his word. Now modern social scientists take great issue with this, because the power imbalance of him being her owner and her being a slave makes it be default rape according to their power dynamics theory. The idea that every relationship will be equal is a ridiculous oversimplification of human behavior, and furthermore completely ignores any possible benefits that someone in a lesser position might have received from this interaction. Now my mind is so far removed from their worldview that I just don't even consider it a bad scenario at all. The fact that she was apparently treated well is good enough for me, really. I guess my unbringing got fucked up because I read a lot of stuff about ancient times and I never grew sensitized to the things that happened in their times to any degree that might bother me. Sexual relationships are just a tiny part of this larger problem, there's also the whole freedom of voting, democracy, common rule, and other things which are more fads of the time than they are any ultimate moral aspiration, in my mind. Far more grievous to me is the killing that took place during the socialists revolts and the anti-church killings in republican spain. But I suppose the modern social scientist will view these as an acceptable loss for the destruction of the established elites.
>> No. 1013 [Edit]
Artistic expression is the same thing as freedom of speech. Books with no pictures can be erotic, they can be downright porngraphic (or maybe pornoliterary if you prefer). At what point does the arrangement of words or the vessel used to portray any idea in a non-physical context stop being freedom of speech? When it offends YOUR sensibilities? And I don't want to hear the argument that expression is a slippery slope, this idea that you can't draw definite lines is silly. In reality the differences between things are not set on an evenly space sliding scale, there are definite transitional points even if there is a flow from one thing to another. The same can be seen in race, people pretend that it's like a perfectly organized color palette, but most people fit into a pretty well defined group with a few outliers in-between and in the landmasses where two demographics converge. There are far less mulattos than germanic-Anglo-scandanavian whites, or african blacks. The same goes with freedom of speech and expression, there's still a very easily defined difference between something being portrayed in a fictional scenario and actually committing an act. It's pretty clear what the difference between actually doing something to a human and portraying it is. Just because it's disgusting doesn't make it anymore real. This idea that we will be free from all that we dislike in a perfect world is just a utopia. Freedom of speech/expression, however, is very attainable when people get their heads of their asses.
>> No. 1014 [Edit]
I regard Edward Teller very highly and believe he was not given even a fraction of the credit he deserved. He broke boundaries of science that as of yet are still unsurpassed or not even come close to from a pure energy perspective, and he is disparaged for what? For endangering a few thousand human lives? His work was worth more than a billion human lives, and if it had been allowed to go to it's fullest he may well have been worth more than any human of earth. He was doubted at every turn and must have felt this sorely, especially when he knew hydrogen bombs would work and basically had to invent them in isolation and with zero funding because the rest of the people working on it either didn't have the foresight to see their possibility or feared them.
>> No. 1015 [Edit]
It's probably because he pissed off oppenheimer and oppenheimer convinced the "cabal" of scientists in his influence (which considering the caliber of the manhattan project was essentially every influential mind at that time) to overshadow Teller.
>> No. 1016 [Edit]
File 160902794839.png - (577.42KB , 1560x768 , 1608935270357 (1).png )
This just won't end, does the west has unlimited funds for woke shit like this? I can't believe this horrid looking crap is praised by almost everyone when honestly Anime surpasses it in every conceivable aspect, this level of shilling is ridiculous.
>> No. 1017 [Edit]
Pixar had more creativity before they got bought by Disney (that CG short of the lamp is probably their best work). Now everything they put out is anodyne. Although their research (disney research) is still of pretty good caliber and well regarded in academic circles. E.g. they publish a lot to siggraph; although since I'm not too familiar with this field I don't know whether their results are actually usable and re-implemented independently.
>> No. 1018 [Edit]
Disney has money to burn. Not that they like burning money but I firmly believe they believe what they're doing is the safest and most profitable course of action that everyone wants to see.

I don't really have anything to back this up, but if you think about it...
First off; SJWs are a very vocal and opinionated minority who manage to make the opposite appear true. I believe the average person doesn't care about or want SJW content, they just aren't going to make a fuss about it and will instead just avoid said content. The real world box office numbers for woke movies support the "go woke go broke" idea.
When doing test screenings, market testing, and online polls, you're going to attract opinionated people who want to express those opinions, and when SJWs tend to be those types of people, you get feedback that doesn't accurately represent what people want.

Secondly; Various entertainment industries, with Hollywood being no exception, seem to be gaining a lot of popularity with younger SJW types who want to push their agendas via the writing they do for games, movies, and even localization of anime. From what I've seen, a lot of brainwashed tumbler kids fresh out of college seem drawn to these carriers that enable them to spread their oh so important opinions, and these industries not knowing any better are enabling them, if not out right encouraging this based off their corrupted market research as mentioned in my first point.

Third; reviewers are sheep and shills, they follow popular threads because their careers depend on being popular. They also depend on material to review, if they piss off a company they might no longer gain early access to it's media. A company won't want people to think their products are garbage, so they'll 'encourage' reviewers to give more favorable reviews. User reviews aren't much better, they come from people who follow popular threads too and can easily have their opinions influenced by others.

In short, I don't think it's an agenda on the companies end. I believe it's bad data leading to bad decisions, and people thinking the emperor's new cloths look great.
>> No. 1019 [Edit]
File 160904177534.jpg - (288.18KB , 936x796 , lol14.jpg )
Does it really?, seems to me Disney is biting more than it can chew, with 'rona keeping it's extremely costly parks closed and movies not releasing theatrically seems they have a lot's of assets but a very small profit margin if any at all, digital streaming will not support all what it has been lost in a year, if they make shit after shit like Mulan for example they are only digging their graves.
>> No. 1020 [Edit]
If you look at their stock prices, they're doing pretty well. They're actually doing better than they were before the march market crash. They don't need the parks, Their media is their bread and butter, and Disney+ is killing it right now thanks to rona. Thanks to over seas markets, even their flops can be very financially successful movies. 9 out of 10 people hating something and not wanting to buy it stops becoming a problem when it becomes 9 million out of 10 million people in a world with 7+ billion people. You've still got hundreds of millions of people eating their shit up, even if they're not the majority.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like what they're doing, in fact I don't like Disney one bit. As for the image, yes the image on the right is butt ugly and hideous. It's made for a culture that has very quickly changed to shun beauty (as we see it) in favor of reliability. Westerners don't like characters who are pretty and cute because it makes them feel bad about being fat and ugly. Westerners are too lazy and spoiled to even try to care about their appearance, and too emotionally stunted to handle any criticism about it. They don't want anything good to aspire to or emulate, They only want to shove junk food in their ugly bloated faces and see people on the screen do the same so they can feel normal. They're also too brain dead to realize what they're doing to themselves both in body and mind.

God I fucking hate this country.
>> No. 1021 [Edit]
File 160911909435.jpg - (137.85KB , 700x915 , 14421440.jpg )
>Westerners don't like characters who are pretty and cute because it makes them feel bad about being fat and ugly. Westerners are too lazy and spoiled to even try to care about their appearance, and too emotionally stunted to handle any criticism about it.
Japanese people are way thinner and dress better, but besides that they aren't particulary good looking on average. I've seen pictures of highschool students and it wasn't pleasant. Super thin eyes, square faces and yellow skin aren't a rarity. That doesn't stop them from drawing good looking characters, so there's more to it than what you're saying.

Post edited on 27th Dec 2020, 5:31pm
>> No. 1022 [Edit]
Western cartoons were never attractive, it has nothing to do with 'reliability'. It's just a difference in design philosophy, western cartoons were always caricatures of things rather than what Japan would create which was an ideal of beauty.
>> No. 1038 [Edit]
This isn't so much a controversial opinion, as it is just me not getting something. I've been reading about MacArthurs relief, and I just can't wrap my head around it. The writer of the book is a pretty big Truman fan and the way he's phrasing it, the reader is supposed to agree with the decision yet I'm having trouble understanding what MacArthur is supposed to have done wrong. Is it just plain writers bias or am I suffering an intellectual breakdown? Because the only thing MacArthur seems to have gotten a little too crazy in was suggesting to use nuclear fallout to contaminate the river between china and Korea.
>> No. 1039 [Edit]
The social market economy and the nordic model are absolutely not the end-game of "development" of countries nor even is the concept of "development" in that sense valid in the first place. There is this rather alarming view in europe that their model of economic regulation and social inequality compensation is the ideal, and that all countries should strive towards it. That those who don't, should be made to, and those who resist are wrong and evil. Maybe in the context of 20th century europe, they are centrist, but in the context of the history of the world they are very fringe. I do not like the fact that there even exist parties in my country that want to move us towards the social market economy or some limited aspects of the nordic model, I know from discussing with Europeans that they REALLY believe that their model of government and social regulation is the ideal, the norm, and their patronizing attitude and shock towards the United States and other countries for culturally resisting it really gets under my skin. I mean, the people I was talking too used so much actual socialist rhetoric "income inequality is inhumane, capitalism is bad, social welfare should be the default and enforced" that I wonder if I'm just talking to people who are considered far-left in the E.U. and that they badly misrepresented the consensus due to either malice or genuine ignorance. If not, WW2 really mind-broke them.
>> No. 1040 [Edit]
Socialism works when you have a small, hard-working, law-abiding, intelligent population. Eurofags are only mistaken in their delusional belief that everybody can meet these criteria.

Post edited on 16th Jan 2021, 12:18pm
>> No. 1041 [Edit]
Socialism existing in the first place is a defacto state of having failed. The nordic model is also not compatible with every, or most, cultures, even within europe. It requires that every single citizen be prepared for a level of self-sacrifice that would require a ludicrous level of trust and homogeneity, to the point that an ethnostate wouldn't be good enough to ensure that it functions anything other than just barely. If even a small percentage of your population thinks "nah, it's not for me", then you've got a problem. It's also just against the nature of humans to defer their ambitions and all but the most insignificant of self-interest for the sake of maintaining a fragile state. Even if you could make it work to a degree beyond just functional, why would you want to? If you're actually competent, you're going to want to be able to make your own decisions about what you do with your money, your property, or your time, and that is going to far outweigh any desire for a safety net. The only workaround is to condition people from birth to see that and only that way of life as the ideal.
>> No. 1042 [Edit]
File 16108886878.jpg - (206.14KB , 850x508 , sample_4f9bd07e5931bb6e891e60e0d3b56bd6.jpg )
>Even if you could make it work to a degree beyond just functional, why would you want to?
I only said it would work. I personally wouldn't care much about making my own decisions if I had nice things around me. Clean streets. Pretty architecture. Trees and flowers. Good food. Excellent public transit. A sense of belonging. Everybody should have this kind of lifestyle. There shouldn't be any homeless people. They shouldn't exist.
>> No. 1043 [Edit]
We just have to figure out how to compress ourselves into 2D beings.
>> No. 1044 [Edit]
I like being the agent of my own decisions, even if that means being poor. I was homeless for a good while once in my late teens and early twenties, living out of my car, and I think I actually enjoyed it a little bit. I don't care much for nice things if they're only available to me if I get along. I've seen the income and tax brackets for the Netherlands, they say they like it there too but someone who makes 25,000 a year gets only like 5000 less after taxes as someone who "makes" 50,000. Guess I'd rather die standing on my own feet, as stupid as it sounds coming from an autistic loser. I'm just not very good at the whole cooperating thing, pretty much the only time I'll behave and follow the general culture is on imageboards. And even then I have a hard time staying in line, I have a hard time not going off on some unwarranted rant or making posts that run the risk of attracting the wrong crowd. To me a state where everything was provided and I made no decisions on the basis that I had to always stay in line would be hell. When you're the owner of your own personal power (power in this sense being a loose term for any kind of resources, energy, or force you control), you don't need to stay in line. I like the idea of only answering to myself, and I'm not saying I'm some dumbass libertarian, I'm saying I'll try to keep some handle on my own power no matter the system I'm in. A system where it isn't possible to be the owner and decider of your own power is worth less to me than a single crackhead.
>> No. 1045 [Edit]
Well, you said yourself that you're "defective". You can't help that. I don't think you see what I see. Things could be so beautiful and simple if people were only better.
>> No. 1046 [Edit]
I think both socialism and extreme-libertarianism (anarcho-capitalism?) work only in the presence of that "small, hard-working, law-abiding, intelligent population" you mentioned. But then such a population would be fine almost under any system of law. With a more realistic heterogeneous population where bad-actors abound and people are not merely rational agents but will gladly compromise in the long-term for short-term gains, both systems fall apart. Socialism for the reasons already discussed in this thread, and anarcho-capitalism for the reason that the majority of people are brainless and easily manipulated by advertising so that market forces – the primary (and only?) element ensuring fairness in a pure libertarian society – are irrelevant. In a rational world Facebook would be long out of business due to its shady practices and data-mining; and yet people simply don't care, and in fact facebook (along with other similar companies) grow stronger each year buying out more and more of their competitors.
>> No. 1047 [Edit]
I think I know what you see. I think I even understand why you see it. I'm not saying it's not appealing from a certain perspective, and I'm well aware that many people genuinely understand the system that realistically would be created and that those people believe that this would be anywhere from a utopia to just a nice and simple and secure way of life that accounts for the people who otherwise would fall through the cracks, and provides a limited yet secure life. What I'm trying to tell you is that not enough of it lines up with my moral values for me to also value it. I'm also not an anarcho-capitalist, or even a libertarian, don't get me wrong. But primarily I think government taxation should go towards actual public projects like roads, bridges, etc, and that government regulation in business should only be as far as preventing monopolies and rooting out clear abuse where it lies- not managing the salaries from the seat of the federal power or providing a vessel for unions to hold the country hostage. I think also that the benefits of having a fallback in case you "fail" are outweighed by the cons of having heavily increased government monitoring of your life and a limited use of the funds that are made available. If someone is down on their luck, their family should help them out. If their family can't or won't, if they're too mentally ill or old too work, then in that case the government should try and find a way to help them. But at the end of the day I think someones life is their own responsibility and it's up to them to solve their problems. I'm also aware that for a lot of people, their lives have problems they didn't create and didn't ask for. I'm one of those people to a degree. But at the end of the day there IS no one else who can really decide what you will do, there is no one else to make something happen that you want to happen. It may be grim, but only what you have in your power is really in your power. If that is limited, it is still the only thing you can rely on. Assistance from everything and everyone else should be treated as good luck and a rarity at best. Not for the sake of others, but for yourself, you are the only person you can control. It's why I'm an advocate for owning weapons, not because I believe that I DESERVE the right to own weapons, but because I know that if I want certain outcomes, I need personal power. Anarchy will never be achieved. It's not something that you should even wish for. I just believe in self-responsibility, and that entails not being stuck out in the cold by an uncaring world, what it really means is using your own power to achieve the results you want. That may not be much, you may not have much power. But in the end, what else can you control except for that which is in your power? Then, if you desire an outcome, it is unreasonable to not look to your own power to do it, because no one and nothing else is for certain.
>> No. 1052 [Edit]
They also topping the list when it comes to things like the human development index so it can easily be shown to work.

>If even a small percentage of your population thinks "nah, it's not for me", then you've got a problem.

Why? These states have law and order and strong systems of welfare, so what could a few people deciding that actually do? Be unemployed and on welfare?
>> No. 1053 [Edit]
The "human development index" was pretty much tailor made to make "development" reflect the social market economy though.
>what could a few people deciding that actually do?
I guess you've never lived near the projects before. And to me it sounds like you're advocating for a strong police state to make sure no one objects strongly to socialist policies, which is pretty funny when you think about it. And pretty realistic too.

Either way I just don't see what's so appealing about welfare, especially considering the staggering tax rates. Not that American corporate capitalism is much better, but if I had to choose between them at least corporate capitalism gives you the option of not being tied into the system and society quite as much. I mean who is the welfare state for besides the poor? I'm not poor, so I don't want it. Anyone who isn't poor or shortsighted isn't going to want it.
>> No. 1054 [Edit]
It's not, it's based on life expectancy, education and average income.

And what will the people in these projects do? Actually less than they would in the US as in this case they will have a strong welfare system to keep them off the streets. I'm not saying they will not cause crime but the motivation for it is lessened.

A strong police force is necessary regardless, I mean just look at the US, you have nut jobs causing chaos on both sides of the spectrum and huge amounts of crime caused by the poor that would not be such an issue in a welfare state. I would argue a strong police force is more necessary in the US than in Socialist states(and that they a stronger one too).

Personally the benefit of welfare to me is not having to work. High income tax is a problem but it scales with income anyway, yes you get taxed 50% of your income over 100k here, so yes it would be bad if that was the case and I was making that much but I would hardly be in the poor house because of it.

>but if I had to choose between them at least corporate capitalism gives you the option of not being tied into the system and society quite as much.

Does it though? I can be and I am completely removed from society. If you have to work then you are going to be tied to society and the rules of that society, you are going to have to behave in a manner that lets you keep that job, you are going to have to follow the norms of society. I don't have to play that game at all.
>> No. 1055 [Edit]
vim is overrated as a text editor, let alone coming close to the functionality of an ide. People who mindlessly champion vim have never spent much time using a modern editor; if they spent as much time fully learning its keybindings as they likely did learning vim, they would likely be as efficient in navigating around as they are in vim. Not to mention that people often leave out the bazillion janky extensions that you need to add in order to have a decent experience.

That said, I will say that among terminal-only text editors it is very good; but unless you've ssh'd into a headless machine I see no reason why you'd want to avoid the plethora of other good gui editors.
>> No. 1056 [Edit]
But in your case you only are free to do whatever you want as long was what you want coincides with what society wants. For example in a lot of welfare systems you can be disqualified if you possess a certain amount of property or do certain things. If the money is yours, if it is really under your power, then it can't be "disqualified" from you without using force. Maybe you don't really care to own property, and don't really have any ambitions beyond relaxing. That's fine, for you, but I do have some ambitions and I have certain things I want to do that I can't do in the kind of country northern europe tends to produce. If I was in the ntherlands right now, my income would fall in the bracket high enough that I would be paying over 50% in taxes, accounting for exchange rates. As it is I can easily afford to live where I live and save up quite a good bit as well, and I'll be using that money to buy some property in about 7 years. But if I took home what I would get in the netherlands I wouldn't be able to afford to even live within reasonable driving distance of my job. I don't value being a wageslave anymore than you do, but to me I see this as a way of earning my freedom. Once I'm done, and I have carefully planned this, I'll be as free as you can be on this earth. That's worth more than living on the good graces of the state to me. That's the real reason I don't want a social welfare state. You might be unburdened and you might be relaxed, but you've given up a considerable amount of power over your own life. I don't care whether it's right or wrong or logical or not, that's just something I simply won't do. It's not even a matter of asking for permission for the power over my own life, if I can hold that power then I won't let it go. I can't understand people who do otherwise.
>> No. 1057 [Edit]
>But in your case you only are free to do whatever you want as long was what you want coincides with what society wants.

The same could be argued of working as well, although as mentioned before it applies to working to a greater degree. Society has no expectations of unemployed people that is the point(well some nations and systems might ask that you seek employment but they may not even enforce that). If society stopped valuing the industry you are employed in, if your employer stopped valuing you, if the industry became automated, if the industry moved overseas, if you were not PC enough for the industry or any other thing could end your employment and it's all at the whim of the economy and society. What could society the whims of society do to effect the unemployed? Short of a revolution in which case you have bigger problems, not much.

>For example in a lot of welfare systems you can be disqualified if you possess a certain amount of property or do certain things.

True, but that amount of money here is $500,000 and that does not include the value of your own house that you live in, so it's not like you are being forced into poverty to be on welfare and even if the limit was $10,000 you could still live freely just not save up money.

>Once I'm done, and I have carefully planned this, I'll be as free as you can be on this earth. That's worth more than living on the good graces of the state to me.

Yes but you have to be a slave to do it. And also you still are living on the good grace of the state and economy. The economy could crash and force you to work again, your investments could become devalued or depending on the nation you are in the government could enact some plan that requisitions assets or made assets worth less or some other shenanigans like that. Sure it is unlikely that the government will do that but it is equally unlikely that the government will cut welfare, it is more likely that the economy will crash(well that is guaranteed, how bad it does it, what sectors are severely effected and how soon it recovers are what matters).

Having said all of this. I can see where you are coming from and I would like to live off of my own investments too. I don't like the idea of living off the charity of the government or others in general. But it's just not worth the time and effort of working to accrue enough to retire off to do it for me. I would be wasting a good portion of my life just for the feeling that I am living on my own wealth.
>> No. 1058 [Edit]
See I do understand where you are coming from and I agree to an extent and I even thought of the possibility of welfare myself, but there are things I actually want to do with my money, not just sit around on it. But I have a bunch of projects in mind that will require money.
>True, but that amount of money here is $500,000 and that does not include the value of your own house that you live in, so it's not like you are being forced into poverty to be on welfare and even if the limit was $10,000 you could still live freely just not save up money.
Here it's $2,000, I think.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]

View catalog

Delete post []
Report post

[Home] [Manage]

[ Rules ] [ an / foe / ma / mp3 / vg / vn ] [ cr / fig / navi ] [ mai / ot / so / tat ] [ arc / ddl / irc / lol / ns / pic ] [ home ]