Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Other
  3. Off-Topic

ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting

posted
Total Posts
56,224
show more
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
B1rd
Glad we're clear on that. You should be the first one to advocate for the privatisation of police, since they are significantly more effective and less brutal in their methods, they are accountable for their actions and they have to provide a product that the consumer wants (prevent crime as well as arrest perpetrators after the fact). In comparison, monopolised state police have a very loose obligation to the taxpayer, they don't have to provide results of less crime or take care of their public images and refrain from police brutality

Witness the horrors and depravity of private police in real life!



Also relevant

B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
B1rd
I don't know, I don't spend my time scouring the Twitter of people I don't like. And it's not something I making up that Vipper and the Left try to discredit someone or something by posting something they've said or done as if it invalidates everything else. It's a tactic he consistently uses.

The reason I call it "expedient utilitarianism" is that you don't seem to have any conception of how values can play out in society over the long term as values that shape society for the better. You can't sacrifice civil rights and freedom for some supposed political gain. The political process is inherently corruptible and it's very unclear what any specific change will actually have on our society even if things are properly considered (which they often aren't), so that necessitates a conservative approach to politics and the scope of government. So you can't confuse foolhardy interventionism with actual utilitarianism, when in fact utility is very hard to establish and determine.
DaddyCoolVipper
342 posts
Joined July 2012
DaddyCoolVipper

B1rd wrote:

I don't know, I don't spend my time scouring the Twitter of people I don't like. And it's not something I making up that Vipper and the Left try to discredit someone or something by posting something they've said or done as if it invalidates everything else. It's a tactic he consistently uses.

I agree that there's a character assassination problem on the internet in general (very hesitant to blame left-wingers for this, the right wing do it all the time too). I don't engage in it myself, though.

When I post particularly stupid tweets/videos from people I dislike, it's because I'm making a judgement of their character based on those things, and showing others the same by linking them (also because I find them amusing and they bait arguments to some extent).

Not really the same as trying to discredit them based on irrelevant, morally-debatable things. I post examples of legit idiocy.
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
B1rd
How can you say that and not realise how silly it is to take one or two comments someone has made and use base their entire character off that?
DaddyCoolVipper
342 posts
Joined July 2012
DaddyCoolVipper
Because they're putting them forward, publicly, endorsing those opinions and often doubling down on them when people respond confused as fuck. It's very telling about their personalities, and shows that they're not worth respect, at least in my eyes.

Besides, I can forgive one ridiculous comment or two- but they definitely add up.
FuZ
363 posts
Joined January 2011
FuZ

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

When I post particularly stupid tweets/videos from people I dislike
imagine using the internet for the sole purpose of getting angry over stupid shit
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
B1rd
Imagine all the people, posting all their lives in peace
DaddyCoolVipper
342 posts
Joined July 2012
DaddyCoolVipper

FuZ wrote:

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

When I post particularly stupid tweets/videos from people I dislike
imagine using the internet for the sole purpose of getting angry over stupid shit

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

(also because I find them amusing and they bait arguments to some extent)

You've never put any thought or effort into insulting me- your entire point was disproven within 2 lines of the actual post. Are you stupid?
FuZ
363 posts
Joined January 2011
FuZ

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

(also because I find them amusing and they bait arguments to some extent)
imagine finding "amusing" stupid shit that makes you angry
DaddyCoolVipper
342 posts
Joined July 2012
DaddyCoolVipper
https://twitter.com/21logician/status/9 ... 8112029696
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
B1rd
Yeah, because I'm sure you wouldn't want a tool to identify if the courses you're spending tens of thousands of dollars on aren't secretly Nazi, because free speech? We should dispense with all tools that helps us label the information we are to consume.

Also, I'm sick of people misidentifying what a classical liberal is. It's not just a buzzword for pro civil rights. It's a broader philosophy that advocates for limited government, property rights and laissez-faire capitalism.



inb4 it was just a bait post.
Aurani
762 posts
Joined January 2013
Aurani

abraker
Global Moderator
8,295 posts
Joined July 2014
abraker

B1rd wrote:

Yeah, because I'm sure you wouldn't want a tool to identify if the courses you're spending tens of thousands of dollars on aren't secretly Nazi, because free speech? We should dispense with all tools that helps us label the information we are to consume.

Also, I'm sick of people misidentifying what a classical liberal is. It's not just a buzzword for pro civil rights. It's a broader philosophy that advocates for limited government, property rights and laissez-faire capitalism.



inb4 it was just a bait post.
That chart assumes the the services are controlled in the manner displayed. Example: graph doesn't apply to cases where Energy is government controlled while everything else isn't. I know that's rare or might even be possible to come by, but in theory, the discrepancy remains.
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
B1rd
If energy is controlled it's not true classical liberalism.
DaddyCoolVipper
342 posts
Joined July 2012
DaddyCoolVipper
That's actually a pretty good picture
E m i
E m i
can the government stop controlling people's ability to affect themselves (e.g consuming powders)

afterwards i wouldn't care what is "controlled"
Green Platinum
2,660 posts
Joined July 2011
Green Platinum
Would you extend that policy to charlatans and the harm they cause?
E m i
E m i
maybe by differentiating between direct and indirect harm, but both can affect other people so definitely not fully.
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
B1rd

Momiji wrote:

can the government stop controlling people's ability to affect themselves (e.g consuming powders)

afterwards i wouldn't care what is "controlled"
If you're forcing people to choose what services they use by forcing them to use tax to fund certain services, then you're controlling people's ability to affect themselves.
E m i
E m i
if the people can at least choose to use different services (like private hospitals) then it's not really preventing them from affecting themselves in that way... It's more about having taxes at all, which is hard to avoid (only reduced or increased based on how many sectors/services the government controls, either fully or partially)

Also taking away money is two-sided (government gains, the people lose)
which is a tiny bit better than one-sided things like laws that restrict consumption of powders (people lose the ability to consume powders)
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
B1rd
You could argue that drugs it two-sided because people harming themselves affects society. It's the same forcing of positive obligations on people the same as taxes, which aren't necessary because you can just privatise the sectors that the government controls.
abraker
Global Moderator
8,295 posts
Joined July 2014
abraker
Time to exercise my ignorance on political matters.

While on topic of drug control, I wonder if the war on drugs could have went better if the government bought out the supply, discarded most of it, and provided it to dealers for a price high enough to cover the costs of buying and discarding it. Artificially inflate the price of it and exhaust supply such that people would have had a harder time acquiring it while still keeping them legal.
DaddyCoolVipper
342 posts
Joined July 2012
DaddyCoolVipper
That seems like a very dumb idea.

Best solution is to make drugs fully legal (but perhaps only sold at state-owned stores?). That way, addicts can get what they need without risk of impurities etc since then it'd be regulated like any other product.
N0thingSpecial
2,355 posts
Joined November 2015
N0thingSpecial
We should crucify the drug dealers
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
B1rd
The government already bankrupts pensioners with the taxes on alcohol and tobacco, and the government is doing its best to smother all of the budding artisan breweries and distilleries in the state. The government trying to regulate the illicit drug industry would be a horror show,.
Green Platinum
2,660 posts
Joined July 2011
Green Platinum
I don't think pensioners are the ones keeping craft breweries afloat.
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
B1rd
I never said they were.
Aurani
762 posts
Joined January 2013
Aurani
Bird mate, I'm questioning your integrity at this point. Don't turn into some edgy Tasmanian Hitler. :p
DaddyCoolVipper
342 posts
Joined July 2012
DaddyCoolVipper

B1rd wrote:

The government already bankrupts pensioners with the taxes on alcohol and tobacco

lmfao

what happened to personal agency? "the pensioners literally can't stop buying tobacco and alcohol, which are 2 recreational and unnecessary products!"
Milkshake
532 posts
Joined August 2011
Milkshake

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

That seems like a very dumb idea.

Best solution is to make drugs fully legal (but perhaps only sold at state-owned stores?). That way, addicts can get what they need without risk of impurities etc since then it'd be regulated like any other product.
somehow that comment reminded me of this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJUXLqNHCaI
DaddyCoolVipper
342 posts
Joined July 2012
DaddyCoolVipper

Milkshake wrote:

somehow that comment reminded me of this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJUXLqNHCaI
Excellent video. The Swiss solution demonstrated is exactly the kind of thing I advocate.
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
B1rd
Switzerland is a leader in many areas, with its gun rights, low taxes, free markets, and a private healthcare system that's one of the best in Europe.
DaddyCoolVipper
342 posts
Joined July 2012
DaddyCoolVipper
You sure do love seeing everything through the lens of propaganda, don't you.
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
B1rd
I don't see how pointing out facts is looking at things through a lens of propaganda.
DaddyCoolVipper
342 posts
Joined July 2012
DaddyCoolVipper
"Switzerland did something well."

YEAH WELL SWITZERLAND ALSO HAS A FREE MARKET AND LOW TAX AND GUN RIGHTS

It's really pathetic to see.
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
B1rd
I like Switzerland. You gotta problem with that?

Funny how someone would get so offended over some mere statements about a country.
Milkshake
532 posts
Joined August 2011
Milkshake
hey for once I don't see what b1rd said that could be seen as so horrible
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
B1rd
Vipper is a Bolshevik, no doubt about it.
abraker
Global Moderator
8,295 posts
Joined July 2014
abraker
In the spirit of free market and to make the economy stronger, I am planning to open a business that sells customer info. They are not allowed to opt out and we are not going to say who's info we sold. Also nobody can sue us because government intervention is bad.
Railey2
512 posts
Joined February 2015
Railey2

abraker wrote:

In the spirit of free market and to make the economy stronger, I am planning to open a business that sells customer info. They are not allowed to opt out and we are not going to say who's info we sold. Also nobody can sue us because government intervention is bad.
Just like any normal person, I do not like being agressed upon. This business model is a clear aggression against the rights that I as a wealthy person have, according to the contract I entered with Dawn Defense (Personal Security & Privacy+). If you sell my data, Dawn Defense will send armed men to your house to make you pay for your crime [DDefense Privacy+ code chapter A]. What now sucker? Free markets!
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
50971 / 56,224