Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

[Andreyich]

@Andreyich@mdk How are you both just going to ignore neo-colonialism though.

It didn't do nearly as much shit as communism.

Yes it's bad but nowhere near as bad as """socialism."""

[Andreyich]

@SleepingSilence
I mean that a corporation should be restricted from all sorts of crap, corporate law and all.

[SleepingSilence]

@Darcs The irony is thick.

So Corporatism...

Though I agree, that's bad. I also want to point out, it's almost completely democrat candidates/issues where lobbyists give their funding towards. :/

Again, I also don't think that has anything to do with your vote. <.<

[SleepingSilence]

@Andreyich So you want strong/many regulations for businesses, correct?

What if I told you, big businesses constantly support big regulations/fines etc.? Because they know they can pay them, but their competition can't. So restricting the ability to make/start a business and what you can do in them, will always be loved by places that want to further their monopolies. Because all that does it hurt the free market and competition.

[Andreyich]

@SleepingSilence
That's why you restrict big businesses and not small ones. Make restrictions and such increment with the earnings/size of a corporation. Also, the saying "the freer the market the freer the people" is a lie

[SleepingSilence]

@Andreyich But that's not how it realistically works in practice, so that's meaningless...also what's a "big business" to you? Because there's a lot of nonsense we could go into with that...(Like Bernie Sanders and the "50" employees needs to provide medical benefits thing. Why specifically that number? There is no reason for it.)

No one should be penalized for making money and becoming successful. It's a ludicrous idea.

Also, because you already dived into the "trolling opinion is lul" pool. I'm not wasting my time with "oh so joking" opinions am I? (That's a problem with "ha, look bait so clever" things on the internet, you immediately lose the ability to be taken seriously ever.)

Because I reply to it, not because I buy that it's a real opinion or not,
I comment because if anyone believes it, you intentionally or not made someone dumber as a result.

Since spreading misinformation for lulz, is cancerous and idiotic and it makes the less intelligent believe in vaccines causing autism or pot being remotely good for you...

[Andreyich]

@SleepingSilence
It doesn't work that way at the moment.

You shouldn't be penalized for making money but you should be restricted from abuse.

No, this ain't copypasta

[mdk]

@mdk
Just because Morgan freeman and the black science man exist that doesn't mean it's not hard for minorities to achieve their full potential and while tumblr-tards exaggerate it """institutional racism""" is still present, even if it's more or less unnoticeable.

@Andreyich

My point is the American Dream is totally achievable.

see also: that's not "the black science man," wtf, that's Don Lemon. (edit: right, right, not US-based, I knew that, sorry)

[Dolerman]

@Dinh AaronMk@Vilageidiotx

all racists are idiots, and therefore have not read those books or know about history well enough.....

@SleepingSilence

I am pretty cool and smart,

@Andreyich

Racism comes from ignorance.

@SleepingSilence

Fine, I'll accept racist since I am prejudiced to other races and prejudice against a certain race is more or less how racism is defined..

@Andreyich

[Darcs]

My point is the American Dream is totally achievable.

@mdk

"These two people have achieved the dream so that means anyone and everyone can."

[Vilageidiotx]

No one should be penalized for making money and becoming successful. It's a ludicrous idea.

@SleepingSilence

Echh, this sounds a bit like the law of the jungle tbh. If it is determined that your success is a detriment to your society, then it is reasonable to curb that success. The purpose of a government by the people is that we as a group determine what produces the greatest benefit to the group with the least harm to individual interests. This balancing act is true for pretty much everyone but the most nutty an-cap. The illegality of a ponzi scheme, for instance, is public regulation that curbs the success of an individual for the benefit of the masses.

My point is the American Dream is totally achievable.

@mdk

Upward mobility in itself isn't new, it has existed since the days of Imhotep. That the US and democratic values in general has improved upward mobility from where it was before is absolutely true, but this doesn't mean we have reached the peak. We should do everything we can as a society to ensure that none of our talent gets wasted trying to clear basic hurdles in poverty. That means keeping social stratification from ossifying and creating some sort of neo-feudal situation like what happened to, say, the Romans.

[MyCatGinger]

<Snipped quote by Darcs>

Asia: Hong Kong should be an instant case-closed; Korean peninsula should be an instant case-closed; Taiwan, Singapore, Japan...

Africa: South Africa, UAE.... but honestly show me success of ANYTHING in Africa, ya know, so like.... anyway Egypt does alright, Qatar makes money, etc.

Latin America: Well the Cartels....

@mdk

hi guys im not part of this thread rly but i just came in here to say that

bro, we're in asia (UAE) and so are qatar

i know this has lit nothing to do w/ your argument o the current discussion but i just wanted to clear this up okay thanks love <3

//flies away

[Andreyich]

<Snipped quote by Andreyich>

(snipped image)

My point is the American Dream is totally achievable.

see also: that's not "the black science man," wtf, that's Don Lemon. (edit: right, right, not US-based, I knew that, sorry)

@mdk

It is achievable, that doesn't mean it's realistically achievable, or in essence what darcs posted.

@Dynamo Frokane You got me

<Snipped quote by SleepingSilence>

Echh, this sounds a bit like the law of the jungle tbh. If it is determined that your success is a detriment to your society, then it is reasonable to curb that success. The purpose of a government by the people is that we as a group determine what produces the greatest benefit to the group with the least harm to individual interests. This balancing act is true for pretty much everyone but the most nutty an-cap. The illegality of a ponzi scheme, for instance, is public regulation that curbs the success of an individual for the benefit of the masses.

<Snipped quote by mdk>

Upward mobility in itself isn't new, it has existed since the days of Imhotep. That the US and democratic values in general has improved upward mobility from where it was before is absolutely true, but this doesn't mean we have reached the peak. We should do everything we can as a society to ensure that none of our talent gets wasted trying to clear basic hurdles in poverty. That means keeping social stratification from ossifying and creating some sort of neo-feudal situation like what happened to, say, the Romans.

@Vilageidiotx

<Snipped quote by SleepingSilence>

Echh, this sounds a bit like the law of the jungle tbh. If it is determined that your success is a detriment to your society, then it is reasonable to curb that success. The purpose of a government by the people is that we as a group determine what produces the greatest benefit to the group with the least harm to individual interests. This balancing act is true for pretty much everyone but the most nutty an-cap. The illegality of a ponzi scheme, for instance, is public regulation that curbs the success of an individual for the benefit of the masses.

<Snipped quote by mdk>

Upward mobility in itself isn't new, it has existed since the days of Imhotep. That the US and democratic values in general has improved upward mobility from where it was before is absolutely true, but this doesn't mean we have reached the peak. We should do everything we can as a society to ensure that none of our talent gets wasted trying to clear basic hurdles in poverty. That means keeping social stratification from ossifying and creating some sort of neo-feudal situation like what happened to, say, the Romans.

@Vilageidiotx

While I usually disagree with most of the bullshit you got to spew I can agree with this. In late stage capitalism protectionism becomes the norm and while the best are supposed to shine in it, they don't and get stomped aside by those who don't want to lose their shit. Late stage capitalism is a ticking bomb destined to collapse under it's own weight into either ancap, ancom or some sort of fascism. To at least prolong it's lifespan for a little bit, capitalism should take some socialist policy to help those who've been proverbially fucked by the system. Really any society should take at least some socialist policy if they don't want random fucks to start bitching and moaning; free shit and gibs make people pretty happy.

@MyCatGinger
You're part of Middle-East/North Africa, at most your part of Asia Minor. When people say Asia they usually mean the Orient.

[mdk]

"These two people have achieved the dream so that means anyone and everyone can."

@Darcs

With precious few exceptions, yes, anyone and everyone can.

That the US and democratic values in general has improved upward mobility from where it was before is absolutely true, but this doesn't mean we have reached the peak.

@Vilageidiotx

Well that's part of the dream, innit? There is no "peak." We just keep building.

It is achievable, that doesn't mean it's realistically achievable, or in essence what darcs posted.

@Andreyich

So it's, what, "unrealistically achievable" in your estimation? I'm doing it right now.

[SleepingSilence]

@Vilageidiotx People becoming rich, doesn't hurt the poor. They do not correlate. It is not reasonable at all. If having "uber" rich people was only/solely due to negatively effecting the rest of society, our poor would not be doing better than the average global middle class. :/

[SleepingSilence]

@Andreyich Again how would restrictions like that even work? Like how about the restriction that any business that gets over 50 employees (part/full doesn't matter) needs to provide health insurance. That's a restriction that stunts growth, how would YOU make that rule justifiable? Add a 0? Add two? Then ask yourself Why on earth would anyone hire that many people?

Restrictions only hurt small businesses. Try to purposefully screw the bigger ones, and they'll move somewhere that won't. People seem to assume ones with no power can try to bully those that worked for a living and took a risk, they'll leave and you'll only make everyone worse off as a result. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates...

Like eating the rich, and bar stool economics should have taught by now. Making the rich "pay", for being wealthy. Is just greed and it doesn't lead to any actual positive results.

[SleepingSilence]

@Dynamo Frokane Taking quotes out of context, sure is fun. :D

So here's my own. Because I lack the ability to give a shit today.

Everyone's favorite guild pervert @dynamo frokane has been reported multiple times for asking way too many personal things to girls in their dm's and nothing has been done about him.

Grimhilder

[Andreyich]

<Snipped quote by Darcs>

With precious few exceptions, yes, anyone and everyone can.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Well that's part of the dream, innit? There is no "peak." We just keep building.

<Snipped quote by Andreyich>

So it's, what, "unrealistically achievable" in your estimation? I'm doing it right now.

@mdk

Becoming Steve Jobs level rich.

@Andreyich Again how would restrictions like that even work? Like how about the restriction that any business that gets over 50 employees (part/full doesn't matter) needs to provide health insurance. That's a restriction that stunts growth, how would YOU make that rule justifiable? Add a 0? Add two? Then ask yourself Why on earth would anyone hire that many people?

Restrictions only hurt small businesses. Try to purposefully screw the bigger ones, and they'll move somewhere that won't. People seem to assume ones with no power can try to bully those that worked for a living and took a risk, they'll leave and you'll only make everyone worse off as a result. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates...

Like eating the rich, and bar stool economics should have taught by now. Making the rich "pay", for being wealthy. Is just greed and it doesn't lead to any actual positive results.

@SleepingSilence

No they don't. There's also lot's of hyperbole on your part, I'm not a fucking commie or some retard like Corbyn/Bernie I'm not asking for anything monumental. Anyway, most of my wishes for restrictions are ethic/moral ones, environmental and to do with outsourcing or "insourcing," especially if the outsourcing/"insourcing" involves one or two of the earlier mentioned things I want restrictions upon.

Your videos linked aren't pertinent to me and anyway are full of hyperbole even if they do make red fucks stop and think about just stupid their position is.

[SleepingSilence]

@Andreyich Yes, they really do. Regulations do hurt small businesses (more than big ones.) if you didn't think that was true. You wouldn't say we need to use them on only big businesses.

And if you don't think applying too many restrictions on big business won't lead to negative consequences, I don't even know what to tell you other than linking to how many jobs are being outsourced for that reason...

I apologize, I'm probably not in the mood to discuss politics and I'm used to the conduct of this forum and I'm not going as in depth as I should if I wanted to properly discuss this.

It's a simple rebuttal/explanation video, but most of the time it's a simple argument that people make. And I don't really see anything that deep in this either.

You say you want mostly environmental restrictions and quality of life kind of stuff. Like making sure there's no lead 'put' in lipstick, right? But are you arguing you only want to make big corporations to go under those restrictions? (correct? Like I'm not talking over you am I? Do you want restrictions on all business? Or "big" ones?)

And how big, is big business? (again there's many problems with that.) And why do you think we need the government to try environmental restrictions? Like Europe going with a cap and trade system. (making their carbon emissions skyrocket upwards...)

[Darcs]

People becoming rich, doesn't hurt the poor. They do not correlate. It is not reasonable at all. If having "uber" rich people was only/solely due to negatively effecting the rest of society, our poor would not be doing better than the average global middle class. :/

@SleepingSilence

Literally show me one person who created wealth, from a business, without exploiting the excess value of the labor of others. Harming the poor is how every economic system has worked since we invented currency-- even before then tbh.

Our poor do better than the average global middle class, because, like I've said, our state in inherently tied to our businesses, and the only poor we leech from more than our own is the poor in other countries. Every 'Western or 1st world or whatever' nation does it.

Chinese labor camps is how people become, as @Andreyich mentioned, 'Steve Jobs level rich'

@MyCatGinger That actually bothered me too lmao.