Plebcouncilman

@Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨POV you are rich⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I immediately thought about sovereign citizens too. They are what happens when based meets with absolute idiocy.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube will let users booted for 'repeated violations' of COVID, elections policies 'rejoin'⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  It gave them the excuse to build their own platforms in which their ideas could spread uncontested and at the same time made them more alluring because “forbidden” knowledge is so alluring to humans that perhaps the most famous myth in history is about how our species lost the perfect existence fell because of it.

  You cannot make anything forbidden and expect that by doing so it won’t spread as long as there is a demand for it. This applies to ideas, drugs, guns, and pretty much everything everything. If the people want it they will get it. Alcohol is the perfect example: we tried to make it illegal and all it did was increase crime, violence and people kept drinking as much if not more than before. Fast forward to today, people drink less than ever. Give people the tools to tell right from wrong, correct from incorrect instead of trying to bubble wrap their world and then act surprised when they feel betrayed because someone told them there is another point of view (false as it may be). Let them see both point of views and let the very absurdity of the opposite view discredit itself.

  If we cannot trust that people can make the correct decisions why then would we insist on democracy?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube will let users booted for 'repeated violations' of COVID, elections policies 'rejoin'⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s not about the factuality of the information though, it’s about the subjectivity of the label. Harmful, hateful, etc are not objective measurable labels and so they can be used to shut down any sort of speech. The paternalistic position that we need to protect people from falsehoods or harmful ideas is frankly condescending. Like I said elsewhere if I cannot believe that people are capable of separating truth from fact, then I must also believe that they are fundamentally incapable of making decisions and therefore I need to take away any ability for them to make any kind of significant decision. I will not follow this line of thought in my life or politics, because then who gets to decide who is capable of making decisions? The experts in their ivory towers? The only experts with apodictic knowledge are physicists and mathematicians, everyone else operates on degrees of certainty, they can be wrong. And furthermore who decides who are the experts? This is a return to aristocracy or monarchy, but instead of divine authority it is credentialist.

  If we want to stop people from believing stupid shit the solution is not to attempt to bubble wrap their world as it were, but rather to give them the tools to discern good information from bad information.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube will let users booted for 'repeated violations' of COVID, elections policies 'rejoin'⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  If I’m to believe that I need to protect people from “bad” ideas and that they are not capable of discerning right from wrong, false from truth, them I will also have to believe that democracy itself is wrong because clearly we cannot allow these monkeys to make any decisions. Now while my heart of hearts might believe this to be true, I do not have apodictic certainty in that and instead I truly believe that education can make people take better decisions and help them discern right from wrong. As such I can never believe in labeling speech as allowed or not allowed, rather I would like to invest my energies into fostering curiosity, truth seeking and knowledge as perhaps the highest human virtues. So instead of burying speech we should be educating kids.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube will let users booted for 'repeated violations' of COVID, elections policies 'rejoin'⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  This is about the only good reply because it’s honest. Very based.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube will let users booted for 'repeated violations' of COVID, elections policies 'rejoin'⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Ok I understand that you, like me are a chimp, but we need to try to overcome tribalism as much as we can. By that I mean stop thinking that anyone belongs to the opposite tribe of yours. I’m not taking any side except the side of logic and reasoning. Prohibiting or restricting speech or ideas has never stopped them from spreading or otherwise gaining traction if the ground for them is fertile. So what’s even the point? We used to have the KKK on tv and through the sheer idiocy of their ideas they still failed as a political organization.

  Invest your energies on fomenting curiosity and truth seeking in people not on removing “harmful” speech. Those are arbitrary labels that we can apply to anything, as Trump et all are showing.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube will let users booted for 'repeated violations' of COVID, elections policies 'rejoin'⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I don’t know that I believe in that sort of paternalistic attitude what I do know is that Google et al have no business dictating what is or isn’t misinformation. It’s a double edged blade.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube will let users booted for 'repeated violations' of COVID, elections policies 'rejoin'⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  People will believe whatever they want to believe, you cannot suppress whatever you believe is misinformation. People in the streets say crazier shit every day, are you also gonna stop them from saying it? Fuck that man, the audience is the one that needs to learn to be discerning.

  Fuck outta here with this fuckhead logic.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube will let users booted for 'repeated violations' of COVID, elections policies 'rejoin'⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  This is not a bad thing actually. “Deplatforming” idiots clearly did not stop their ideas from spreading so might as well allow people to say whatever inane shit they want instead of getting them riled up for “censorship”.

  I know it’s not real censorship but technicalities hardly matters. What matters is how people feel.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Political discourse⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s weird that all countries have the same policies if they are so bad. But here’s the fact: the stronger your safety nets, the more difficult do you have to make immigration lest the system collapse. And allowing immigrants that cannot access the safety nets is a sure fire way to increase your crime rate because now you have a underclass that wouldn’t have existed. So yes the US should have laxer immigration policies than other countries, but not full blown open borders. Not unless there is a practical reason to do so, which there isn’t.

  I never said it was impossible, I said we need to slow walk it because it can’t be radical, not unless you are willing to commit literal murder. I’d advocate for accelerationism first before I advocate for killing people who oppose you ideologically.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Political discourse⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  True we have the resources in theory. The problem is that the necessary structural change to do that right now is so great that it can only be done by literally nuking civilization out of existence and starting over again. Seeing as that might not actually be a good option, we need to slow walk it because the other ways have been tried and they don’t end well

  And yes I’m exclusionary. I would love to hop on a plane and move to somewhere in Spain right now. But guess what? They don’t make it that easy. That’s what I meant early when I said something about everyone being on the same legal framework. I couldn’t find th right words but the gist is that unless every country on earth has open borders then no country on earth should have open borders.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Political discourse⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I never said the opposite. But social nets have their limits because resources are not infinite. First we need to make sure the material needs of our people are met before we can help others. I don’t understand how this is a controversial thing to say.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Political discourse⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Wow my guy, just wow. Bravo, you’ve turned this into an art.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Political discourse⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Then what is it? Because it sure as fuck doesn’t sound right wing but someone just called me right wing because I agree in some points with MAGA. 🤣

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Political discourse⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  1. I don’t think that, but I do know that if 1 singe American is having a hard time while we are helping 1 illegal immigrant, then we are doing something wrong and it will breed resentment.

  2. You are a raw ally bad faith argumenter. I’ve never said science is fake, I’ve said that social science (though it also happens in the natural sciences to a lesser degree) is not really science, not with any degree of certainty as physics etc. here’s a little summary: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis?wprov=sf…

  but searching in Google Scholar or JSTOR will bring up many many studies about the problem. So when people say “the science backs this” using a social science study that is not replicable, it takes two brain cells to realize that no, there is no science backing such a claim.

  3. Yes I also meant farms which are also very often corporations. And that’s what I said in my very first comment, the Trump administration says a lot of things that are right (not as many that are wrong but they are not wrong about everything ), but they use it to serve their interests instead of actually solving the problems. Farmers are the biggest enemies of any of the solutions to many of the problems in America, we should nationalize the whole industry at this point because it cannot exist without government subsidies and yet they use the money to lobby against environmental and immigration reforms. They like the status quo. But if you don’t want to nationalize them we can stop subsidizing them and simply subsidize their wages directly in such a way that they can pay living wages instead of relying on immigrant labor.

  But again you are arguing in bad faith and I do not think that you have any coherent ideology that isn’t “oppose everything the other guys do”.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Political discourse⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Fascism has an established definition. Hell there’s a literal manifesto

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Political discourse⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Free open borders doesn’t work unless everyone, literally everyone is working on the same legal framework . This could be good long term project for humanity but as it stands right now now, national divisions matter. You can’t have people that weren’t born here overwhelming our nation and getting aid when our own people are suffering economic hardship. The problem with people like you is that you want everything now, and that’s not possible except through extreme violence and often ends up not solving the problems. I would love to be able to remake the system from the top down, but we know that never ends right.

  I don’t think science is bullshit, I think non reroducible experiments are not science. I love science, but the social sciences in the present exist in the same stage of development as medicine was in the Middle Ages. This is a provable fact. Universities need to be centers of knowledge again and not job training centers.

  Like someone pointed out, I said corporations are living off the government tit, that’s a fact. I would prefer if the tit was feeding us instead. I think I made it very clear that I’m pro social safety nets.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Political discourse⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Exactly. I think government and corporations exist to generate wealth to benefit society. Right now it exists to benefit corporations.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Political discourse⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I identify as a fascist communist that leans libertarian

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Political discourse⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Centrism doesn’t mean sitting on a fence. It means most of the time understanding that both sides are right and wrong at the same time, I often see the problem identified right but the solution prescribed absolutely incorrectly.

  Here are some centrist positions.

  We need to stop unfettered immigration, so closing the borders is great, locking up and kicking out immigrants who have committed legal offenses is good, and we should expedite that process but we shouldn’t be kidnapping or profiling people. We shouldn’t be giving economic assistance to illegal immigrants. I know it doesn’t happen at the federal level but it does happen at the state level.

  Banning guns won’t solve the violence problem, guns don’t kill people people kill people. American violence is caused by inequality and lack of mental healthcare. Solve that instead of taking guns away.

  We should have higher taxes, universal healthcare and stronger safety nets but also much less regulation because most of it is actually designed to protect the incumbent corporations. Free the markets as much as possible, but never bail out a single corporation that fails, bail out the employees.

  Increasing the minimum wage does nothing.

  Instead of relying on underpaid immigrant labor the US should stop giving cash and tax subsidies to farmers and instead directly subsidize their wages by paying the employees directly. This is my middle of the road solution, we should actually consider nationalization of farms. One of the few things where that could work right now because I think nationalization in general leads to terrible mismanagement. But farms are already inefficient, corrupt and mismanaged and also living on the government tits so we might as well.

  Justifying things as “scientific” when the science is social science and the results are not reproducible is intellectually dishonest, and is rampant in discourse about various topics nowadays. The academia brought upon themselves the mistrust they have garnered. This is good because universities have become job training centers and they were never meant to be that, so maybe we’re due for a little creative destruction.

  I could continue, but I got shit to do.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨tall tails⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s only obvious because you already know what a beaver looks like.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Give a lil, get a lil⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Nice try Kash.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Give a lil, get a lil⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I used to spend a lot of time there in 2017 or so and the political spectrum went from monarchists to fascist to white Christian nationalists. The closest thing to left you would find were civic nationalists and some former Bernie bros that turned into Bannon populists.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Give a lil, get a lil⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Wait 4chan is not conservative (again)?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How popular/important do you have to be for your death by homicide to be labeled as an "assassination"? What if the homicide is for a private matter that's separate from their importance?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah and when the intention is just to kill the person then it’s just murder. Both murder and assassinations are homicides. When the attack isn’t planned, at least legally, it is considered manslaughter. So the only possible definition left is that an assassination is a killing that serves an end instead of being the end itself. Thats were I got it from, working logically through the definitions.

  But just in case: www.britannica.com/topic/assassination

  We are pretty much arguing the same position, my definition was just a little broader because I think limiting it to “prominent persons” is a little hazy. Was the CEO that Luigi supposedly killed a prominent person? I can’t even remember their name and I certainly don’t know their face so I wouldn’t consider them prominent. I’d argue this is the case for most people in regards to that case. Yet the fact of the matter is that that situation was also an assassination.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How popular/important do you have to be for your death by homicide to be labeled as an "assassination"? What if the homicide is for a private matter that's separate from their importance?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I think it is fair to label something as an assassination if the death is actually only a means to an end and not the end itself. For example a prince assassinates his father to become king. The true goal is becoming king, but in order to do that the prince needs to kill the king, but the killing itself is not the end goal.

  So most politically motivated murders are assassinations, because the death itself is a means to other ends.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The USA prided itself on a nation of immigrant, heck even the Statue of Liberty says it. When did immigrants (US citizens from the old world) become anti immigrant and why?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  You need to put it in context, many if not most of the denominations that came to America seeking religious freedom did so because continental Christians considered them extremists. So yes, they were seeking it only for themselves.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hollow Knight: Silksong is out now on Steam - and it broke Steam servers for 15 minutes and counting now⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I think this is possibly also the problem for me. I compulsively explore, and the more a game has to explore the higher the chances I’ll get tired of it before I even finish it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hollow Knight: Silksong is out now on Steam - and it broke Steam servers for 15 minutes and counting now⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  If Id rather watch a movie or a show I would watch a movie or a show. No, I just don’t like backtracking.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hollow Knight: Silksong is out now on Steam - and it broke Steam servers for 15 minutes and counting now⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I love souls games, but other than Blasphemous and Dead Cells, I have struggled to stick with Metroidvanias a lot. I find that they are open in the worst way possible for me, because I can get lost and then spend time “progressing” only to find the way blocked and having to backtrack. These days I have low tolerance for wasting time, or more specifically to the feeling that I’m wasting time.