Thread has been deleted
Last comment
Ben Shapiro
ZywOo | 
France 1zn0 
When people are desperate or wealthy, they turn to socialism; only when they have no other alternative do they embrace the free market. After all, lies about guaranteed security are far more seductive than lectures about personal responsibility. "Ben Shapiro" Read more at: brainyquote.com/authors/ben_shapiro 200IQ GOD HE IS SO SMART LOGIC TOO STRONK
2018-10-16 12:11
#1
 | 
Denmark Mah1 
200 iq huh? he doesnt even know mirage ct smoke nt
2018-10-16 12:13
#21
 | 
World z1g 
xd
2018-10-16 12:36
destroyed by FACTS
2018-10-17 19:30
+1111111111111111111111111111
2018-10-16 12:45
#38
 | 
Poland henlo 
lmfao
2018-10-16 12:47
#48
ScreaM | 
Brazil HLTVolt 
Damn, you owned him hard
2018-10-16 12:52
#56
 | 
United States Trump2020KAG 
Lol
2018-10-16 12:54
xd
2018-10-16 13:17
#112
 | 
Ireland lander1337 
+1
2018-10-16 14:50
#138
Proxy | 
India Proxy_ 
hahahaha
2018-10-17 13:09
#143
 | 
Portugal Zedonp 
or pit nade from short on inferno
2018-10-17 13:21
#145
 | 
United Kingdom Hamshanks 
hahah +1
2018-10-17 13:22
dude chill XD
2018-10-17 19:29
lol
2018-10-17 19:34
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
2018-10-18 17:26
unbearably stupid
2018-10-16 12:14
#7
 | 
Europe tweekzter 
unlike your founded argument
2018-10-16 12:22
i'm not debating arguments, but faith. the only lie here is the idea that the market is free and that it works if "everyone acts responsibly". laughable stupidity, unworthy of my actual thought.
2018-10-16 12:25
He never said that the market is in fact free, he implied that people embraced the idea of the free market or the at least the hope for one as a means to improve their lot.
2018-10-16 12:29
the market can not be free, since a) it needs regulative rules for monetary trade to even exist and, b) the differences in profit rates quickly tranform it into an oligopoly. it is only possible in the scenario of perfect competition, but in perfect competition profit rates are very low so everyone lives like shit. g'day.
2018-10-16 12:36
Very bad economics coming from you. a) Monetary trade expands market and competition, give it is a free market money like gold and silver. Not fiat shit. b) Profit rates tend to estabilize in the long run, it only does not manifest because new data is always imputed into the market, like changes in preferences and natural resources. Still the powerful dynamic that makes it move toward a new equilibrium position and enables economic calculation on real time (market prices) its what it makes it so powerful.
2018-10-16 12:42
you didn't udnerstand a word, didn't you? a) you need an institution that facilitates what money is, where and how goods can be traded, who can you employ and what employment is, etc. you need regulation for trade. b) profit rates tend to decline due to competition and market saturation. bad economics, bitch pls seriously.
2018-10-16 12:52
a) Completely false theoretically and unproven statement based on economic history. Money is an institution on itself. b) Thats exactly what I said.
2018-10-16 12:56
waste of time
2018-10-16 13:02
TL;DR "I'm dumbfounded and have no retort"
2018-10-16 13:06
Completely false theoretically and unproven statement. i am retort on itself.
2018-10-16 13:12
TL;DR "I'm dumbfounded and have no retort"
2018-10-17 11:29
reply needs to have actual content
2018-10-17 13:01
TL;DR "I'm dumbfounded and have no retort" reply indeed has actual content
2018-10-17 17:31
Don't rekt him so hard guys
2018-10-17 20:18
#116
 | 
Brazil HaiduHilario 
+1 mate, teach this dumbass some basic economics
2018-10-16 15:20
True communism has never been tested thou
2018-10-17 19:36
#39
 | 
Europe tweekzter 
Still better than too much regulation .People are naturally egoistic (even the good ones). So if you put too much power into a government, they will exploit it at one point. Better to leave it at least somewhat competitive. Besides, you will always work better, if you're intrinsically motivated.
2018-10-16 12:48
ah yes, the "people are naturally.." argument, that gets blown to pieces every time it collides with reality. didn't read.
2018-10-16 12:54
#87
 | 
Europe deVulse 
lol nt commie
2018-10-16 13:10
+1
2018-10-17 19:34
#144
 | 
Portugal Zedonp 
+1
2018-10-17 13:21
#27
Poland rdkN 
+1
2018-10-16 12:40
+1
2018-10-16 12:50
#3
 | 
Czech Republic Skleepy 
He is king of stupidos when the discussion is about religion though. He should just stick to the politics.
2018-10-16 12:16
he is dumb about politics too dont worry
2018-10-16 15:27
#146
 | 
Portugal Zedonp 
its 50/50 tho he can present his arguments about politics mroe clearly.
2018-10-17 13:23
#148
 | 
Russia goodjob 
religion is one of the small amount of things i disagree with him about
2018-10-17 13:27
sorry i arent understood
2018-10-16 12:17
Ben Shapiro absolutely DESTROYS a hospital full of Palestinian children with FACTS and LOGIC [rekt] [thug life]
2018-10-17 19:38
Ben Shapiro MURDERS SJW Snowflake (with logic) and BURIES her BODY (under facts)
2018-10-17 19:39
LOL
2018-10-17 19:41
Ben Shapiro verbally SODOMIZES libtard with the rhetorical equivalent of a BROKEN BOTTLE and then just when they've had enough, he Heritage Foundation survey data to proverbially FUCK the SJWs in the face TO DEATH, at which point he BREAKS HIS DICK OFF in her MOUTH with a quote from THOMAS JEFFERSON
2018-10-17 19:42
thanks i understand now
2018-10-18 08:04
left wing destroyed 😎😎😎🔝
2018-10-16 12:17
#89
 | 
Europe deVulse 
as always lul
2018-10-16 13:11
#170 😎
2018-10-17 19:43
When people are desperate [or wealthy,] they turn to socialism; only when they have no other alternative do they embrace the free market. when people are desperate surely they have no alternatives? also in what fucking world do rich people want socialism? that never happened ever in the history of humanity. and the use of words is very suggestive. socialism is something ppl turn to (passive action) but of course free market capitalism is so wonderful you must embrace it (active) 8/8 nice capitalist propaganda, oink oink motherfucker. and even after writing this i still dont have any idea what this idiot is trying to say
2018-10-16 12:22
He is saying that wealthy people will reject capitalism for the supposedly higher moral ground of socialist policies after the market has enriched them. They also look to stifle competition with socialistic policies like excessive regulation and taxation. Socialism is the opium of the intelectuals and the entrenched elites. It makes them feel better about themselves. It also appeals to intelectual's ego because he generally cant make a living on the free market. He resents the petty merchant that actually earns money and despised the common folk for not admiring his "superior" intelect.
2018-10-16 12:35
thats dumb, being rich doesnt make people more moral. arguably, less so, as they have bigger interests to protect, more to lose, from being moral and doing the right thing than ppl at the bottom of the ladder. excessive regulation, america has that, and they arent a socialist country. capitalism also creates excessive regulation. through lobbying rich people can bend the rules in their favor. governments have to then create very complicated systems of rules so that there is not a level playing field. more taxation harms rich people, the amount of rich people that are in favor of themselves being taxed more in america is very low. warren buffett. thats basically it. the rest doesnt give a fuck. they would literally rather watch the world burn. you might say more intelligent people are drawn to socialism more on average, but if someone smart gets rich early in life, or their parents are rich, they probably wont be socialist. it just doesnt make sense for those people financially.
2018-10-16 12:36
Wrong, many rich people brand themselves as socialists for the reason I cited and more. And while the entrenched may not advocate the complete socialization of production, taxation and regulation is proven to help estabilished business and generate monopolies, simply because those bigger companies can bear the burden of the higher costs due to economies of scale and their market position. Also the rich can avoid having their personal wealth confiscated just by moving around their funds with a touch of their finger and some good lawyers.
2018-10-16 12:38
not having taxation and regulation creates monopolies for sure. thats just inherent to capitalism. some one will be smarter or faster or more lucky than someone else and drive them out of their business and buy it. until there is only 1 business left. rich people arent in favor of higher taxation. they are in favor of other people being taxed more highly. the workers. not themselves. ive never seen a rich person who dared to call himself socialist in holland. they would be scorned. if youre so socialist why are you making this much money and keeping it all for yourself? maybe in france you tolerate that bullshit but here we dont.
2018-10-16 12:41
Complete free market monopolies are theoritacly impossible and not factual in economic history. It just never happened. Monopolies are generally granted by the State or created by regulatory policies and licensing. Also substituting competition for a de facto monopoly (socialization of production aka monopoly in the hands of the State) because capitalism supposedly generate monopolies is a nonsensical assertion. They are in favor of higher taxation if it means they can stifle competition and earn even more in the long run by expanding their market share. Taxing workers reduces their purchasing power and generally nets no benefit for the capitalists in their position as sellers.
2018-10-16 12:47
if the state doesnt create regulation, there will eventually be a monopoly in every line of business you can imagine. its the natural order of capitalism, that all fish eat each other and grow until there is only 1 fish left which was the biggest and the meanest and that fish can create huge barriers to entry and then no one can threaten their monopoly anymore. for an example, might i suggest you read up on the Bell Telephone Company.
2018-10-16 12:49
Will give it a read thanks. The problem with this free market theory of monopoly is that as the this one big company swallows everything it acually loses the power to calculate effiently because the market dissapears. It is in the same position as the socialist central planner in a complete socialized economy that lacks market pricing mechanisms. It will go under, supposed that the state does not prevents it from doing so.
2018-10-16 12:59
no it will increase prices as much as it wants and everyone has to keep paying, or start the revolution. those are your 2 options.
2018-10-16 13:00
No it cant, the monopolist will only increase prices to the point his marginal profit equates his marginal costs. And to calculate those profits and costs it needs market pricing, which in a complete monopoly does not exist. It is impossible.
2018-10-16 13:02
a monopolist doesnt need any calculations, they can charge whatever they want. as much or as little as they want. as much when there is no competition, and sell below purchase price when someone else tries to enter the market.
2018-10-16 13:03
Wrong again, they need calculations to maximixe their profits. Else they will be working under ineficient conditions and open space for rivals to come in and dispute their market share. In fact if they have higher marginal costs relative to their marginal revenues they will be incurring on losses and will go eventually under. Economic calculation is a prerequisite for any kind of market structure including monopolies, and in a free market an all around monopoly is impossible because of that.
2018-10-16 13:06
there is no chance of competition in a monopoly without regulation. if any pops up, you simply feel into your monopolist pockets, pull out a couple billion dollars, and eat those while selling below purchase price until your competitor dies. then you can go back to charging 1000% profit margins. this would happen every day in every sector if govt didnt make it illegal to undercut competition in the market and lock ppl up for that shit and prevent big takeovers so there are less monopolies.
2018-10-16 13:08
If he keeps working inneficiently he will have to curtail production and sell his assets.There is no way around it. The lack of doing so will only accelerate the process. Competition WILL arise and there is nothing he can do. This situation will arise simply because he cant calculate.
2018-10-16 13:11
you can work very inefficiently if there is no competition and still make huge profits. in a monopoly, you can ask whatever you want and ppl have to pay it if they need what you have.
2018-10-16 13:12
No he cant, already detailed why for you.
2018-10-16 13:12
no you didnt, your explanation is not an explanation. you cannot explain how competition can arise in the situation where there is a monopolist who creates huge barriers to entry and can always compete on price because they can run losses for a long time. you didnt explain why it is a problem that a monopoly is inefficient, when there is no competition. etc. you say something but you dont explain. you give no reasoning.
2018-10-16 13:14
you seem somehow to think that a monopolist will just go out of business by itself becauso of inefficiency but inefficiency doesnt matter if you charge a 10.000% profit margin.
2018-10-16 13:15
Again it matters because he cant calculate those margins without real market prices. He can never accertain the position he actually is. Accounting will not exist. He will be groping in the dark and will actually would have been in a better position by abstaining from monopolizing the whole market. In fact the whole argument presuposes a de facto monopoly already exists which is an impossibilty because as the market approaches this position economic calculation disappears.
2018-10-16 13:19
you dont NEED TO KNOW WHAT POSITION YOURE IN WHEN YOU HAVE A FUCKING MONOPOLY. you already know you are in a monopoly. people dont care that theoretically theres nash equilibrium and monopoly isnt optimal, they want to win. they want to have control. that you cannot calculate something doesnt mean it cant exist. when that happens, you know your theory is insufficient.
2018-10-16 14:49
I like how religious you are. Dont listen to reason, just keep on believing the shit rich people made up to keep the oppressed in their place. "Its your own fault you are not rich" :D
2018-10-17 17:58
#147
 | 
Russia goodjob 
you dont get it.. they will turn to socialism so all the so called "normal" people would turn to them, because they think by talking how they care about everyone and how socialism will help everyone, they care about them individually.. which is obviously no the case just like the fact that they dont give a fuck in general for the most part.. and they shouldnt or at least it should be individual, no one should be essentially forcing you to "care" about people you have no idea about by paying extremely high taxes taxes should be moderate, they shouldnt be reaching extremes.. like they never ever should be even close to 50%, unless your country is completely fucked, but even then the tax raise should only come for some time that will take to fix the economy and the country itself, but also for this to work your government should be capable of fixing things
2018-10-17 13:26
in todays society, one man or woman can make an invention that can feed or clothe 10.000 people or achieve something else. these inventions are only possible because millions of people work hard every day to maintain roads, electricity grid, internet connections, public transport, schools, businesses, everything. without a society to work with and in, no one would ever become rich. when you look at people who make many millions or even billions of dollars or euros, that is a good reason to tax them much higher than 50%. the government can use that money to provide more infrastructure so that everyone can become even richer. this is much more efficient than letting a couple people hoard all the capital. more purchasing power means people can buy more shit which means you can sell them more shit. economy isnt a game where 1 person has to win and the others have to lose. if everyone could be richer if the rich and big corporations were taxed more highly, wouldnt it just be a good thing?
2018-10-18 15:03
any person who calls themselves intellectual should at least be capable of supporting themselves with a job so they can pursue intellectual interests in their free time. if you cant put food on the table, youre not an intellectual. you shouldnt have time to be intellectual, you should get a job.
2018-10-16 12:38
I agree but if you can be supported by taxes and dont actually have the need to appease to the uncultured masses that listen to Justin Bieber you are set.
2018-10-16 12:39
i dont understand what youre trying to say
2018-10-16 12:42
Simple. The masses rather listen to Biber than Beethoven. They rather consume fast food entertainment than try to decipher complicated readings, music etc. Since the consumers are the ones dicating who is rich or not in a market, the intelectual resents this. He feels he cant be appreciated by his uncultured peers. He turns to socialism to appease his ego and fill his pockets.
2018-10-16 12:50
thats not intellectual, thats desperately pseudo-intellectual. thats just being a fucking loser. yeah dumb people like dumb shit and smart people like shit that isnt dumb. fucking get over yourself jesus christ. also how will socialism help anyone fill their pockets? it says that if you can work but you dont, you dont get anything. from each according to ability and all that. the word youre looking for here isnt 'intellectual', its profiteer. intellectuals try to think about useful things instead of as we say in holland stare at their own navel.
2018-10-16 12:52
There are intelectuals and intelectuals. Sure some can make a living on their own, but many pay lip service to socialism and decry capitalism out of petty envy and resentment. And yes those are fucking losers.
2018-10-16 12:54
if some guy cant even make minimum wage then why should i trust that his brain works properly
2018-10-16 12:54
You shouldnt
2018-10-16 12:56
then why do you call such people intellectuals. seems like an easy target to hate on.
2018-10-16 12:58
oh btw consumers dont dictate who gets success in the market or who gets rich. advertising does. who buys the advertising? rich people.
2018-10-16 12:59
You can advertise what you want but people have the final choice where they spend their money. If that was true no company would suffer losses and fold. Including the inumerous number of big companies that spent millions in publicity but still could not satisfy market demands and correctly antecipate where preferences where going,.
2018-10-16 13:00
no they dont, advertising works, it manipulates people. one company spends 1 billion advertising a shitty superhero movie, they make 2 billion. someone else makes a much better movie with less advertising budget and they barely break even. some companies spend billions advertising a 400 euro phone for 1200 euro and it sells better than 400 euro phone for 450 euro. its just about convincing ppl their shit smells nice.
2018-10-16 13:02
Untrue, losses are in fact the common position in the market. Despite all those millions or billions spent on propaganda. Dont be blinded by succeess stories, they are the odd ones out.
2018-10-16 13:03
yes some ppl get really lucky and make a lot of money and then they use that money to advertise and lobby and push other businesses around so they stay on top until they get really unlucky or really stupid.
2018-10-16 13:04
Yes they use their gained position to lobby for advantages with the state like public contracts, regulations that favor them and taxes that stifle competition. Hence thats why the entrenched hate the free market.
2018-10-16 13:07
a completely free market would be even better for them than a regulated market because then they can kill competition simply by having more money. without regulation, one dollar = one vote.
2018-10-16 13:10
Im sorry but I already refuted this simplitic view in our other conversation.
2018-10-16 13:12
no you didnt, you just said im wrong and youre right. thats not refuting. thats disagreeing.
2018-10-16 13:13
No I actually showed with economic theory why your assertion is nonsensical. Maybe you should educate yourself a bit more on the matter because it seems the argument went over your head.
2018-10-16 13:15
which economic theory? name it. i will show you why youre using it wrong.
2018-10-16 13:16
Economic Calculation under Socialism. Which is actually a special case of what I argued here.
2018-10-16 13:20
i googled it and the only thing i can find thats relevant is this: Milton Friedman agreed that markets with monopolistic competition are not efficient, yeah no shit theyre not efficient, but they are STABLE. the efficiency of a business is fucking irrelevant if there is no competition and there can be no competition.
2018-10-16 14:45
"Other libertarian capitalist analysts believe that monopolies and big business are not generally the result of a free market. Rather they say that such concentration is enabled by governmental grants of franchises or privileges." this is retarded american libertarian bullshit. monopolies are the only possible conclusion in a market without regulation. one business will be 1% more successful than another and eventually buy up all the competition. this wont make them more efficient. but you can just bully people so they cant be efficient either. and then your monopoly stays intact. until it is split up by regulation. you see this in the past with the bell phone company. you see it now with Disney. you see it in every country, not just america.
2018-10-16 14:46
youre just arguing a completely irrelevant point while ignoring that it is irrelevant in a monopolistic situation.
2018-10-16 14:50
well?
2018-10-16 13:18
#49
 | 
Laos Syaro 
>also in what fucking world do rich people want socialism? that never happened ever in the history of humanity. hes talking about rich upper class white people loving socialism
2018-10-16 12:53
those dont exist. rich people love capitalism, as libertarian as they can get it.
2018-10-16 12:53
#51
 | 
Laos Syaro 
they do lol
2018-10-16 12:53
not in holland. our rich people are assholes. im pretty sure its like that everywhere.
2018-10-16 12:54
#55
 | 
Laos Syaro 
im talking about americans mostly
2018-10-16 12:54
haha american rich people are like the biggest assholes. they dont want socialism, if they wanted that, they would have it already. they can literally just make that happen in 4 years time. but they dont. because theyre not socialist. theyre capitalist.
2018-10-16 12:56
#60
 | 
Laos Syaro 
not the super rich but wealthy upper class
2018-10-16 12:56
the wealthy upper class is only trying to get richer why would they waste their time on politics
2018-10-16 12:57
#66
 | 
Laos Syaro 
because theyre retarded?? they think china is a perfect country and all bad things about it is fake news etc
2018-10-16 12:59
maybe theyre just pretending to be retarded so they wont be lynched by the poor?
2018-10-16 13:00
#82
 | 
Laos Syaro 
ok good bait you got me
2018-10-16 13:06
no im srs theyre just pretending to give a fuck about literally anything when all they care about is money.
2018-10-16 13:09
#149
 | 
Russia goodjob 
they "want' socialism to make themselves look better in the eyes of "normal" people in reality they're smart enough to understand that socialism not only bad by definition but also doesnt even fucking work
2018-10-17 13:31
it worked in holland for a couple decades
2018-10-18 15:03
#183
 | 
France SpooceCooke 
um? I'd say nearly a majority (or more) of the upper class here in Western Europe are socialists to some degree, value signalling is a very common thing
2018-10-18 17:36
#8
forsaken | 
Singapore D1v1ne 
Funny that Ben Shapiro appears to be one of the most intellectual people on the right, yet even his views are so unrealistic. Is half of the USA desperate because they don't have about 30,000$ for 8 weeks of chemo for cancer? Without health insurance, surgical treatment of a broken leg typically costs $17,000 to $35,000 or more. We still not desperate? How about the tens of thousands of dollars of student debt? The issue with Shapiro and the right is that they are sellouts. They don't represent the people, they represent their donors. Instead of wanting the local society to progress, they rather hand out freebies to rich people and scare people into submission. And to any person with half a brain, you know what they are doing is fearmongering. What is the country that they bring up when they talk about socialism? Venezuela. Which countries do they never bring up? Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark.
2018-10-16 12:22
these are not the words of an intellectual, these are words of a bigot trying to pander to bigger bigots. its mostly that his immediate competition is actually retarded so they can make anyone look smart in comparison.
2018-10-16 12:24
He looks smart by nature since the other people on the right in the US are literal loonies, absolutely agree.
2018-10-16 12:25
he would probably be smart if he grew up in a less retarded environment where he isnt rewarded with attention for drawing the wrong conclusions or misrepresenting things or manipulating people. its kinda sad
2018-10-16 12:26
#30
gabs | 
Andorra DiaRhea 
Its not left vs right. Liberals vs conservatives. Its about people vs the higher ups of govt. Wake up everyone. No matter the outcomes, the govt higher ups always win. People like Ben Shapiro, Alex Jones, Young Turks are all just means to pit all of us against each other while they enjoy their massive wealth and power.
2018-10-16 12:42
#142
 | 
Russia goodjob 
yeah, like Shapiro was wealthy his whole life
2018-10-17 13:21
#133
 | 
Brazil Eugeo13 
Sweden is a failing state with even the UN claiming it will be third world by 2050 and the rest are following suit. Your free healthcare and college increases government spending and dumbs down the quality of said services. This increases the national debt which in turns makes the state print money to pay for said debts, causing inflation and lowering the standards of living. You call people who don't want to pay for other people's dumb decisions in life loonies when in fact you are delusional and frankly, not as smart as you think you are.
2018-10-17 11:57
You are the idiot here. Imagine speaking on "national debt" when the US is the country with the most debt BY ABOUT 200%! Dumbass. Do tell me how Finland is going to print money when they are in the eurozone. There is no quantitative easing in the eurozone, you mong. Please don't talk when you know nothing about economics.
2018-10-18 19:51
#187
 | 
Brazil Eugeo13 
Yes the whole point is that the US has 21 trillion dollars in debt. I know you are not very bright but getting free healthcare and college will only make the situation worse, especially since over 80 million people don't even pay taxes. Also what is the ECB you literal retard. Did you graduate high school? The EU will just print money and lend it for them, that's what they've been doing since forever. If you want to see the future of your socialism, just check southern europe and france. If you reply with something dumb again like you just did I will just laugh at you because you do not deserve anything more.
2018-10-18 20:29
"They don't represent the people" - lies, I guess even more of the middle and high class people support the right in many countries. Sweden was like the least socialist country in the first half of 20 century, the time it gained its power, same happened to the rest, besides Norway which also has natural resources. Not to mention that these Nordic countries are not socialist, just have bigger size of government
2018-10-17 19:46
The high class support the right BECAUSE THE RIGHT DEFENDS THE RICH. Did you read the BS you typed out before you pressed "Post"? You see the correlation there? Rich people = like money = want to keep their money = vote for people who will lower their taxes and not take their money = RIGHT. You think progressives like AOC and Bernie Sanders would give out 2 trillion in tax cuts to the rich? FORGET IT.
2018-10-18 19:52
Who told you taxation is necessary? People work hard = respect money = don't want their money to be stolen = vote for people who will lower (or remove) their taxes = RIGHT. The rich create employment, increase salaries for those who improve their business more than others. Competition = progress
2018-10-18 23:56
who?
2018-10-16 12:23
some washed up edgy american kid
2018-10-16 12:24
some jew
2018-10-16 12:24
#17
XeqtR | 
Norway F1lur 
Okei
2018-10-16 12:30
member of the (((tribe))). the controlled opposition.
2018-10-16 12:39
gtfo with that 4chan shit
2018-10-16 14:49
Fuck that zionist piece of shit.
2018-10-16 16:09
Lul plaths alt
2018-10-16 16:26
#26
gabs | 
Andorra DiaRhea 
He is just a budget Alex Jones.
2018-10-16 12:39
Not even similar
2018-10-17 13:13
Yes. (((Ben Shapiro))) isn't even worth one of Alex Jone's pubes.
2018-10-17 13:39
Ben Shapiro can be annoying and has some weird views. But he's got some good points as well. Alex Jones is just an obnoxious moron.
2018-10-17 19:27
#29
 | 
Finland Lehtori 
> go to new school > there's a qt 3. 14; 10/10 in my class > too shy to talk to her > after weeks of mental preparation i decide to try and strike up a convo > go up to her after class > she doesn't tell me to fuck off > our conversation is actually going nicely > ok no, this is too good to be true, isn't it? > "So, Anon, would you like to go and talk some more at my house this evening?" > holy shit what > "W-well, I'm free, so, uhh, yeah, that would be nice" > have to hold myself back from screaming from excitement > ffw to evening > arrive at her house > she looks amazing > we start to talk for a little bit > I'm in love > this girl is so fucking perfect > after some time, I ask her what country she would like to visit the most > "I think Sweden" > "But it's socialist" I say, jokingly > "I know! That's why it's so amazing!" > oh no > I know what's gonna happen now > the ground begins to shake > we can hear something approaching her house really fast > suddenly, one of the windows breaks > Ben Shapiro flies in and kicks her in the head > she starts screaming > Ben grabs her and throws her at the wall with incredible strength > she dies on impact > I stand there in shock > Ben Shapiro turns to me and gives me the look from pic related (i.gyazo.com/f971cf8b50786275572b97a68279.. ) > "Another libtard pwned" > I cum in my pants > that's the last time i saw him
2018-10-16 12:42
#35
 | 
Spain emCee_ 
LOL it also happened to me.
2018-10-16 12:45
#69
 | 
Finland Lehtori 
Yeah, shit happens 😂
2018-10-16 13:00
#127
 | 
Europe deVulse 
lmao
2018-10-16 20:12
He's extremely dumb
2018-10-16 12:43
How so?
2018-10-16 13:03
#34
 | 
Spain emCee_ 
Historically, desperation turns into fascism.
2018-10-16 12:44
#91
 | 
Europe deVulse 
historically radical leftism creates fascism :)
2018-10-16 13:12
#105
 | 
Spain emCee_ 
-1
2018-10-16 13:53
#124
 | 
Europe deVulse 
-urmother
2018-10-16 19:54
#125
 | 
Spain emCee_ 
-1
2018-10-16 20:04
#126
 | 
Europe deVulse 
-urfather
2018-10-16 20:09
#128
 | 
Spain emCee_ 
-1
2018-10-16 20:37
#40
 | 
Australia sad_faze_fan 
epic libtard destroyed 🗿🗿
2018-10-16 12:49
Ok, this is epic 😎😎😎😎
2018-10-16 12:50
#45
flusha | 
Germany sanos 
Okay, this is epic
2018-10-16 12:51
#71
 | 
United States Trump2020KAG 
When u are rich it’s easy to support anything u won’t have to worry about anything u are rich. But when u are a common citizen it does matter. Open boarders migration high taxes socialism communism lopsided trade deals. All that stuff matters to people like us not the rich living in a huge house with a huge locked fence(a wall) around it.
2018-10-16 13:00
#76
 | 
Switzerland hanniba1fade 
i thought he is smart too but after u watch 2-3 videos of him you heard everything he has to say and it becomes super repetitive and his "debate skills" are the same. he always says the same things, no matter what the question is, he finds a way to turn it into one of his 5 talking points
2018-10-16 13:02
thats how these guys usually are
2018-10-16 14:56
also a typical trait of frauds like him and milo and peterson and PJW is to reply to the dumbest argument possible as if it was what the opposite side of them thinks, to then seem like the rational and truthful one when in reality no one, or sometimes only a small dumb minority of their opponents, said what they're replying to
2018-10-16 15:30
Why do you feel Peterson is fraudulent?
2018-10-17 11:49
For this kind of (lack of) reasoning Look at his videos that are outside of his field of expertise (clinical psychology) and try to take each argument individually ask yourself if the affirmation is really true or if the reasoning is really sound Then compare that with his videos on psychology, where he is actually legit
2018-10-17 17:29
I appreciate you saying he is legit in his field of expertise. I have read both Maps of Meaning and 12 Rules for Life and watched many hours of his lectures and it appears to me that his research, thinking and reasoning is very profound, so we agree on that part at least. I have also seen videos of him talking, for example, politics and he is always the first one to admit to lacking knowledge if the topic is outside his academic field and very careful in his wording. I've had times where I doubted some of his claims, but so far every time I did a little research into a particular subject I found studies backing those claims up. He might have a tendency of getting carried away by emotions occasionally and of course he is not right 100% of the time, but to call him fraudulent and lump him together with Shapiro and Yiannopolous is far-fetched. He might be more of a conservative, but he has many neo-liberal convictions and he is far from being affiliated with the alt-right like Milo is. I despise the fact that the far-left puts him in that corner (I am not saying you are or you do, obviously). He is as much opposed to the far-left as he is to the far-right. I know your only comparison was fraudulence, but I still wanted to get that out there. Going back to your statement, I am open to being convinced otherwise, so specific examples would be very welcome.
2018-10-17 19:05
The last 2 examples I have in mind are: - his tweet on Gödel, which he later deleted: twitter.com/asherlangton/status/96474052.. - him talking about postmodernism: youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms I also used to binge watch all his videos btw
2018-10-17 19:55
Thank you for this. About the Godel theorem: I have too little knowledge of it to pick sides. I doubt there are many people who fully understand this theorem, but applying a mathematical theorem to philosophy seems a bit off although not impossible if not over-simplified like it appears to be here. Fact is, in Maps of Meaning he further explains the context in which this quote is used and provides meaning to his train of thought. Nevertheless, it is definitely striking he removed that tweet and hasn't gone into it any further as far as I can tell, so I tend to agree he might have been out of his debt here or at least took a leap philosophically. I'd like to see what modern-day scholars or philosophers have to say about this instead of just reading critical internet comments. About postmodernism: good video, definitely makes soms sound points, but here JP is misinterpreted at least some of the times. Yes, he uses buzzwords to entertain his (probably young) audience and makes some connections that ask for context or further explanation and he even overgeneralizes, but that doesn't mean there is no truth to it. I've recently read Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks and this book explains in detail and with much more sophistication what Peterson is talking about in this 5 minute clip. Some quotes by po-mo philosophers that come to mind: “Postmodernism has an agenda/politics. Postmodernism is not to find the truth, but exercising power for the purpose of social change. Purpose of the professor is to help students spot, confront and work against the political horrors of one’s time.” -- Frank Lentrecchia “Deconstruction relieves me of the obligation to be right and demands only that I be interesting.” -- Stanley Fish “Deconstruction never had meaning or interest than as a radicalization, also within the tradition and certain spirit of Marxism.” -- Jacques Derrida Certainly just looking at what Foucault or Derrida have to say about po-mo will bring you to the conclusions JP makes in his video, you'd need to look at the broader context of all po-mo philosophers, who not coincidentally all resided on the far-left of the political spectrum.
2018-10-18 07:05
#141
 | 
Russia goodjob 
thats because you dont have to come up with anything new, thats why hes always explain things the same way.. cuz its just obvious
2018-10-17 13:19
jewish lawyers are the best
2018-10-16 13:16
HOLY SHIT OMG sXCFG OWNED LEFTSITS LUL BEN_SHAKIRA_COMMIE_sLAYER_1337_6969696969696969696969696969696969696969 /s
2018-10-16 14:48
another thread about this virgin jew faggot gg
2018-10-16 14:52
#117
NAF | 
United States EZIBP 
cy@ in 10 years
2018-10-16 15:26
nah
2018-10-16 16:10
He seems to put the desperate ones in both camps, as having no alternative is quite similar to being desperate. It also seems to be a strawman because you don't need to lie about guaranteed security to defend socialism. Also, wealthy people are not likely to turn to socialism, at least not if personal gain is their motivation (which seems to be Shapiro's angle here). If you're wealthy, it means you have a big advantage over the competition, which means that the more free the competition, the easier it will be to push your advantage over others. Regulations would prevent you from doing certain things, such as abusing a dominant position which would pretty much guarantee you to maintain or increase your power/money. Same for wealth redistribution, it would limit your money, which would limit your power, while increasing the money and power of others. It's much more costly for wealthy people to defend socialism (which doesn't mean that there aren't rich socialists, just as you'll surely find poor capitalists). ------ I've always wondered if those who support a free market economy without regulation or wealth redistribution would also support a game of CS without loss bonus, money ceiling, equal starting income, guaranteed lost round income, etc...
2018-10-16 16:30
shaprio isn't perfect. some of his opinions make more sense than others. some of his arguments are well constructed and logical, others less so. this particular quote is poorly worded and contradictory as you've pointed out. im not entirely sure it's a strawman though. i think "lies about guaranteed security" is a contemptuous description of the way socialism is promoted in the US. it might be an oversimplification but i wouldn't call it a strawman since there are ample examples of socialists in america promoting their campaigns by promising "free stuff" some of which isn't realistically feasible for them to provide. the cs analogy however, is a classic example of a strawman. it's much easier to argue against having no money ceiling, equal starting income or lost round income in cs than arguing against wealth redistribution or some specific regulations. personally, i've always wondered why people who are pro wealth redistribution and universal equality never bring up the root of the problem and instead enjoy dancing around the monetary issue which is only secondary. to me it's quite obvious the root of the problem is about family structure. this doesn't only concern inheritance which is solely a monetary problem but also education and genetic imbalances which potentially end up giving one individual an edge over the other. it seems idealism only goes so far or perhaps even hardcore equality fans realize that true equality isn't only unachievable, it also leads to a dystopia. therefore to me it seems quite obvious the question shouldn't be to regulate or not to regulate, to redistribute or not to redistribute but how to maintain a balance of fairness and sustainability (good luck defining fairness btw). even then it's kinda an issue of the privileged society. if you are a hobo in a first world country chances are you are having it easy compared to some shitholes out there. to attempt getting true redistribution would most likely require a world government with unified regulations but people don't seem to be too hyped about that idea.
2018-10-16 21:02
"shaprio isn't perfect. some of his opinions make more sense than others. some of his arguments are well constructed and logical, others less so. this particular quote is poorly worded and contradictory as you've pointed out. im not entirely sure it's a strawman though. i think "lies about guaranteed security" is a contemptuous description of the way socialism is promoted in the US. it might be an oversimplification but i wouldn't call it a strawman since there are ample examples of socialists in america promoting their campaigns by promising "free stuff" some of which isn't realistically feasible for them to provide." Even if I were to grant you for the sake of discussion that the people defending socialism do so by promising "free stuff", it would still not get us to "lying about guaranteed security" which is far more specific both in intent and content. But even promising "free stuff" is a mischaracterization of socialism anyway, because socialism doesn't promise anything for free, everything has a cost, and if for example a socialist would like to implement so-called "free education", the money would still need to come from somewhere, if a "socialist" tries to claim that they can pull it out of their hat, then they're either deluded or dishonest, which means that they can't accurately defend socialism or any system for that matter. I don't follow the US political scene much, so I don't know how socialist politicians defend socialism, but I doubt they would be so dumb as to pretend that what they want to implement would be "free" as in "free stuff". At best I guess they could promise something along the lines of "free" as in "free to use", which is completely different. For example a "free to use" education would be free in terms of entry fees and stuff like that, but the teachers would still need to get paid, the buildings to be maintained, etc, so the money would have to come from some form of taxation. Anyway, let's assume that some US socialist politicians are not being clear enough about how they'll raise the money required for their projects (which is not a dumb political move in the US given the popularity of taxation in the country ^^), or worse, let's assume that Shapiro is correct and that they outright LIE about it, meaning that they know it's not free, but when pressed on it clearly state that there will be no cost regardless (which I doubt anyone is stupid enough to claim, but let's grant that anyway). Then Shapiro is simply attacking those particular people and not socialism, because socialism is quite clear on that, you only need to look in more socialist countries to see where the money comes from for their socialist policies, it's not a secret at all and you don't need to lie about it to defend this position. But I'm guessing Shapiro knows that already, he just disagrees with socialism on principle, which he's entitled to, but claiming it requires to lie about guaranteed security to be defended is overreaching and a mischaracterization. Anyway, it's not that big of a deal, he's not the only one doing such things, I'm sure you can find mischaracterizations of capitalism from some people. ----- "the cs analogy however, is a classic example of a strawman. it's much easier to argue against having no money ceiling, equal starting income or lost round income in cs than arguing against wealth redistribution or some specific regulations. " It's not a strawman because my goal wasn't to represent capitalism accurately (otherwise I would probably not have chosen an analogy, which by design can't represent something accurately). It was more of a thought experiment. My goal was to point out how fairness is something that seems very important to capitalists in some competitive environments, but not others. As for why it's the case, I'm guessing it's because there's no personal cost for them to implementing these regulations in games, if there were some kind of personal cost applied to players for implementing regulations, then I suppose the capitalists would either stick to their guns if they were the wealthy ones, or become socialists and ask the devs for regulations if they were the poor ones. Do you think it would happen differently? If so, how? ----- "personally, i've always wondered why people who are pro wealth redistribution and universal equality never bring up the root of the problem and instead enjoy dancing around the monetary issue which is only secondary. to me it's quite obvious the root of the problem is about family structure. this doesn't only concern inheritance which is solely a monetary problem but also education and genetic imbalances which potentially end up giving one individual an edge over the other. it seems idealism only goes so far or perhaps even hardcore equality fans realize that true equality isn't only unachievable, it also leads to a dystopia." That's surprising, because to me it seems that the monetary issue seems to be a central piece of capitalism, not family structure, which seems to be quite secondary? Regarding education, it's directly linked to income levels of your parents in a capitalist world, the more money your parents have, the better education you'll have, I don't see how that's not a monetary issue. Genetic differences is much more interesting, although I don't know how it's not addressed by socialism, it's part of the problem pointed out by socialism, which is inequality from birth, which is why it argues for at least basic needs to be financed by the community so that even disadvantaged people can at least have some chance to either make it or at least live decently. Socialism doesn't claim to be able to erase differences, genetic or not, it only claims to compensate for them in some way (how much it's compensated will depend on which branch of socialism we're talking about I guess). I also think genetic differences are not our biggest worry in terms of birth inequality (doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken into account to some extent though): someone genetically mentally slower born in a rich environment will have many other rich people with lots of resources to help them, while someone genetically mentally faster born in a poor environment will not only be hindered by their own lack of resources, but by the lack of resources from their local community as well, the smallest mistakes can become big problems in such situations, I think it's hard to argue that genetic differences are as strong of a factor in success than environmental factors are, it would be arguable if we were solitary animals, but we're social ones, which means that mostly our start will be conditioned by the good or bad state of the social circle in which we're raised. True equality is indeed unachievable, just as true merit is, it's not the goal of socialism to achieve true equality, those who try to claim they can (or want to) achieve it are unlikely to be socialists (probably more likely to be communists). Whether or not it would lead to a dystopia becomes relevant only if it's a goal and if it's achievable. ----- "therefore to me it seems quite obvious the question shouldn't be to regulate or not to regulate, to redistribute or not to redistribute but how to maintain a balance of fairness and sustainability (good luck defining fairness btw). even then it's kinda an issue of the privileged society. if you are a hobo in a first world country chances are you are having it easy compared to some shitholes out there. to attempt getting true redistribution would most likely require a world government with unified regulations but people don't seem to be too hyped about that idea." Well the worldview of socialism (as far I comprehend the modern view of it anyway) is that fairness and stability are complementary: by compensating for the disadvantages of the population, you can you allow the whole population to contribute to their potential, but also make sure that people who have innate disadvantages can at least have a chance to get past them. I think it is an issue of regulation, because without regulation, you will not tend towards stability, and it's an issue of redistribution, because without redistribution, you will not tend towards fairness. Capitalists accept some regulations (otherwise they would advocate for true capitalism which would lead to being able to do any business in any way, including the most immoral ones), they just want as little regulation as possible, which means they want just enough stability to not fall into complete chaos (which is quite a low standard for stability, but that's the cost for being able to do business as freely as possible). However capitalists are mostly opposed to redistribution, because their view of fairness, as far as I can tell, boils down to: you deal with what you get, it's fair because it wasn't imposed on you by someone else, except by chance (or a god, depending on who you're talking to). If that's not your position that's fine, I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, I'm just summarizing the kind of opinions I got from capitalists so far. I'm not sure about a world government, the only kind I would support would be a government that is legitimate, that is, recognized and supported widely by the population, and representative, that is that it defends the interests of their population as a whole. Even single countries struggle a lot with both of these characteristics, and they share a common language and culture, so I don't see that happening any time soon, even assuming socialism becomes dominant over capitalism (which doesn't seem to be the trend anyway).
2018-10-17 13:09
you should write a book
2018-10-17 19:32
i'll answer in reverse order. of course it's not happening because as i've mentioned earlier people who pioneer equality tend to be willfully ignorant of the consequences. they don't want "real" equality. it's okay for some shitholes in africa or the middle east to have middle ages societies and suffer from famine and deadly diseases, that's none of our concern. if we were to create a government responsible for both 1st world countries and those shitholes imagine how much money that would take. it's not only about providing basic necessities such as food or shelter, it's also about supplying healthcare, education, upgrading infrastructure etc. would it be in the interest of say britain or germany to spend large portion of their economy to help, say zambia, reach a decent standard of living? HELL NO. is it really substantially different from a wealthy briton wanting nothing to do with the education or healthcare of some chavs who he might rather not have as a part of society at all if he had a say? the only plausible solution from my standpoint is nationalism. as long as you are a hardcore nationalist it all fits together perfectly without any dissonance. it's a valid point to believe that your countrymen have priority over outsiders therefore you want to restrict the pursuit of equality only to your country. it does leave me a bit skeptical though given how traditionally folks on the left who are often the ones supporting socialist policies are strongly opposed to nationalism. defining fairness is the tough part. redistribution can't be possibly fair by definition because it means taking stuff from someone and giving someone else. the way we justify it is through sustainability. the thing we are trying to sustain is equality of opportunity though in modern times the idea of equality of outcome seems to be very popular. you can't possibly sustain equality without unfair action (unless you believe everyone is innately equal, an idea i personally reject). even if everyone were innately equal their families aren't. as you've mentioned, someone born into a wealthy family will have more opportunities than someone who isn't. obviously equality of outcome demands more unfairness than equality of opportunity. all that being said the issue of defining fairness is super complex imo. it shouldn't be a purely economical discussion but more of an ethical and perhaps philosophical one. obviously in the end economy sets the boundaries since you want to end up with a system that works. family can't be secondary to money. it doesn't work like that chronologically. you've even said it yourself: "the more money your parents have, the better education you'll have". it's not only bound by money though. if your parents are both highly intellectual there is a high chance you are going to end up with above average intelligence as well. moreover, the way they raise you up will have significant influence on your personality and abilities. inequality created by different initial wealth is a direct result of being born to families with different financial background which is a subset of inequality created by being born to families with different background in general. we could argue which aspect of said family plays the biggest role in future inequality but i think it's evident that whatever it might be it's only a secondary issue. possible aspects being money, caste (not so relevant today unless you live in india, but having royal blood was more important than being rich in the past), your parents' personality, educational skills, number of kids in the family etc... notice that i hadn't mentioned socialists explicitly in my 2nd paragraph. i've talked generally about people who are pro redistribution (those usually happen to be socialists but it's not restricted to them) and who value equality above everything else. propagators of open borders are one example, 3rd wave feminist another. they aren't necessarily socialists since it's not purely a financial issue, though financial issues often get brought up as a premise for their arguments such as the gender pay gap or the need to help economic migrants. i think the cs example is simply bad. if it's meant to create an analogy between real life economy and the in game economy i see it as a strawman since it's quite easy to explain why certain mechanics should be the way they are in CS while "similar" mechanics in real life are debatable and harder to agree upon. so saying "look, you support redistribution and regulations in cs economy, so why not in real economy?" (which isn't exactly what you've said but kinda the essence of it) is an attempt to present an easier argument: justifying cs economy is easier than defending redistribution and various regulations directly. as for fairness i don't think it's applicable in the same sense to some of the CS mechanics and economics in the real world. first of all cs has been historically an asymmetric game in the sense ct sides were always stronger. is it fair that counter terrorists used to have an easier time? i don't know. how do you even define "fairness" in that context. after all both teams get to play each side. valve had attempted a few different approaches to make the sides more balanced. balance doesn't necessarily mean fairness. it doesn't make a lot of sense asking which game was more fairer, 1.6 or csgo. the things you've mentioned in your analogy are: loss bonus, money ceiling, equal starting income, guaranteed lost round income. what would happen if you removed some or all of those features? basically it would turn into a 1 round game. the team who wins the first round gets so much ahead it dominated the rest of the game. that's a shitty design but is it unfair? not necessarily. given they had equal opportunities and one side always dominates after winning the first round it's seems quite fair to me. i think this trend is more pronounced in dota2. initially laning stage was super important and a team that dominated the laning stage would seize map control, outfarm the opponent and eventually win the game. come backs were quite difficult. then valve made a radical balance shift where they made the gold you gain by killing enemy heroes depend on the economy imbalance. that meant that if a team was way way behind winning a single team fight could completely turn everything around. which of those two approaches is fairer? i don't know, it seems like a weird question to me. personally i didn't like the 2nd approach one bit and was happy when valve ended up nerfing the comeback mechanic. i think a better analogy for unfairness would be to compare f2p and p2w games.
2018-10-17 20:26
"i'll answer in reverse order. of course it's not happening because [...] are often the ones supporting socialist policies are strongly opposed to nationalism." The reason it's not happening has very little to do with whether or not they want "real" equality or not (whatever that means, as I already stated, "true" or "real" equality is unachievable anyway, you're beating a dead horse and I'm beating it with you). I think you still have this idea that you need to want "true equality" in order to want equality at all. It's not happening because doing anything on a global scale is a huge endeavor that requires the cooperation of many countries (and for a global government you would require the entire cooperation of all of them). Even assuming a majority of people wanted that, it would be incredibly hard to put in place at the global level, again, even at the national level it's hard to put in place, and that's with the help of sharing the same language and culture (and currency). As long as humanity is divided as it is you can't redistribute resources on a global scale system, that's just not gonna happen. Which is why people focus their attention on where it's realistic, that is, either at the national level or at the state level when applicable, it's not because they limit their notion of equality to some people, it's because they're limited by what they can do in the current situation, which is mainly due to an individualistic mindset. A redistribution system is not simply one country spending loads of resources to give them to another, that's just humanitarian aid. If you put in place a global redistribution system, then the load wouldn't be only taken by UK alone, it would be shared by all countries (Zambia would also have to contribute), and the goal would only be to allow poorer countries to reach decent levels of living (as in, not die of hunger, not die of easily preventable diseases, etc), afterwards, it's up to them to improve their situation further with their own economy. Now we could discuss how much we should help at this point, and my answer would be a gradual one: first solve the biggest and obvious problems, such as hunger, and then we'll talk about the others. You're vastly overestimating the amount of money required to simply ensure that a country can have a decent quality of life. Ending world hunger for example requires something like 150 billions per year, simply among the top10 countries you have more than 15,000 billions per year in budget, and that's only the top10 countries, if it was spread throughout 200+ countries it would be an extremely modest amount for each country to pay. And I agree, as soon as you start putting arbitrary limitations to who you would consider helping for basic needs, such as "only my fellow citizens" for example, then nothing prevents you from putting these limits elsewhere afterwards such as "only my region" or "only my county" or "only my family". That's the problem of putting arbitrary limits on who deserves basic resources to basic human needs: once you put an arbitrary limit then everyone can put theirs as well, and everything is fine as long as you're not on the other side of that limit. So if that's the way you feel, there's not much I can do other than wish you and people you care about to never be on the other side of other people's limits when you're in a bad situation. As to whether it's a valid point or not depends on which side of this limit you're on. ------ "defining fairness is the tough part. redistribution can't be possibly fair by definition because [...] boundaries since you want to end up with a system that works. " Wait, if you're in favor of equality of opportunity, then shouldn't you be in favor of some kind of redistribution? If you're not, how do you plan to establish equality of opportunity? I don't see how that's unfair to spread resources so that everyone has access to the same basic opportunities, such as, for example, living. It's not like "I have a toy, so I have to share it with you so that you can have fun too" it's more like a "I have more than enough food, you need food to survive, I have to share some with you so that you don't die" kind of thing. Also, it's not taken so much as it's given, taken would imply the use of force and constraint. Would you say that it's unfair for you to give away some of your food so that the rest of your family can eat? If you wouldn't say that it's unfair, then the principle of redistribution is not something you consider unfair by definition, it's more the group that you have to give to that you consider to be unfair, isn't it? I'm all fine for an ethical and philosophical discussion: I do indeed consider everyone to be innately equal on a basic level based purely on what exists: we are all human beings with all the same basic needs, we all share a common space and resources, therefore trying to put an arbitrary limit on which humans will be excluded from meeting their basic needs is not morally justified, especially when there's more than enough resources to meet these basic needs. If we go further than basic needs (health, food, shelter), then it can become more complicated, but we would first need to agree on that basis before we can move on. I should also mention that I base my morality on well-being (maybe you do too, it's just that I've discussed with some people who don't, and if you don't, we would first need to discuss which basis for morality is justified). ----- "family can't be secondary to money [...] educational skills, number of kids in the family etc..." Oh I totally agree that the root of inequality is in what family you end up in, but I thought you were saying that capitalism was concerned with family structure, so I didn't really understand where you were going with that given that family structure is just the mold into which capitalism sets into, but can work perfectly well (and would actually work better) without family structure, but I guess I misunderstood what you meant. I don't think we disagree on much on this paragraph, I just thought you were arguing that it's something that socialism doesn't consider, which I didn't see how given that birth inequality is one of the initial assessment of socialism. ----- "notice that i hadn't mentioned socialists explicitly in my 2nd paragraph [...] the need to help economic migrants. " Well not being an advocate for open borders (because you don't simply open borders, if the goal is to unite two countries, or the world, you have to first have a common language, then a common culture, then a common identity, we're not even at the first step) or a feminist (I think I'm more of an egalitarian), I don't feel like I need to limit myself to the financial issues, although I think they don't either, from the kind of views I've seen from them, they seem to mainly argue from an ethical standpoint first. In fact the only open borders advocates who I saw only focus on financial issues are the capitalist ones, because their only concern about borders seems to be the cost that it implies on trade and flexibility for their workforce, etc... Either way, I try to meet people where they're at, so if they only have financial talking points, I suppose I'm fine limiting myself to that, if that's not what you want to focus on, we can surely talk from another standpoint. ----- "i think the cs example is simply bad. [...] it doesn't make a lot of sense asking which game was more fairer, 1.6 or csgo." Again, the analogy didn't have the goal to represent a view accurately. The goal was to explore why in some competitive environment fairness was something valued by capitalists, and not in others. My hypothesis was the lack of personal cost to apply this fairness in games, you haven't replied to that, should I conclude that you agree with that hypothesis? I also tried to imagine how it would turn out for capitalists on both sides of the scale if there WAS a personal cost to these regulations in games, you haven't touched on how you think it would turn out, I assume you don't disagree with my proposition? You're arguing that it's much easier to determine that regulations are needed in a game like CS, but that's not the case in a capitalist mindset. What justifies the money ceiling for example? So what if a team gets so ahead that they never need to eco? They won more rounds: they get more money, from a capitalist point of view it's perfectly deserved, it's the limitation which is undeserved. What justifies the money loss bonus? I won and the opponent can potentially win even more than I did? Nonsense, I won, I should win more, because I accomplished something, they didn't. How do you justify a guaranteed lost round income? They didn't achieve anything, how come do they get something for not achieving anything? The pattern is this: the capitalist view is based on an individual goal, which is individual merit, its goal is to reach true individual merit (or simple individual merit for moderate capitalists). A game is not based on that because if it was it would need very little regulations, instead it's based on something that transcends the individual: the common goal of the players taking part, which is to have fun. The only reason it's easy to argue for regulations in a game is because all players share this same basic goal, which means you need to make sure that situations don't get too skewed against some players. Even if they don't have the exact same conception of fun, they have very basic things on which they agree on which tend towards this basic goal of having fun (for example equal opportunity to win). That's how you justify regulation in a game: so that a majority of people can enjoy it, and not to tend towards true merit, because tending towards true merit in a zero sum game means that you just let things follow their course and whatever happens is fair because it happens. The question now is whether or not there's a common goal among human beings. I think there is (at least) a basic common goal: decent living standards, and as a result I think regulations should be put in place to reach at least this basic common goal. Again after this goal is reached, we can discuss about how it extends (or not) to other goals depending on their degree of commonality and feasibility. You're arguing that balance doesn't necessarily mean fairness, do you have an example where balance wasn't motivated by fairness? Or maybe you meant that the fact that you try to balance something doesn't necessarily mean that you succeed in achieving fairness, in which case I obviously agree, but the fact is that you're at least trying to, in what sense does capitalism tries to balance anything? ----- "the things you've mentioned in your analogy are: loss bonus, money ceiling, equal starting income, guaranteed lost round income. what would happen if you removed some or all of those features? basically it would turn into a 1 round game. the team who wins the first round gets so much ahead it dominated the rest of the game. that's a shitty design but is it unfair? not necessarily. given they had equal opportunities and one side always dominates after winning the first round it's seems quite fair to me." Really? Without equal starting income they had equal opportunities on round 1? So a team starts with 2000 and one starts with 200, and they had equal opportunities? That's...odd, although not that surprising if you're a capitalist. ----- " i think this trend is more pronounced in dota2. [...] when valve ended up nerfing the comeback mechanic." Sure, I'm sure balance is something that varies a lot from a game to the next, and evaluating what's fair or not is not easy, especially when you go beyond the minimum starting conditions and equality of treatment from the rules, which is why I like focusing on the minimum starting conditions (because I don't think we disagree that we should be equal in front of the law? Or maybe we do), this is where you usually find the common goal on which you can try to build fairness. ----- "i think a better analogy for unfairness would be to compare f2p and p2w games." I don't think so, but maybe you can change my mind, how would you present this analogy?
2018-10-18 17:25
#131
 | 
Poland MAGA2020 
lefties mad ITT
2018-10-17 11:30
Agree with him on some points but on other points, he's dumb as fuck, especially when it comes to healthcare or money in politics and he gets away with it because he debates some dumb ass college kids who got no idea what they're talking about.
2018-10-17 12:11
#135
 | 
United States ascendaNt_88 
Ok, this is epic
2018-10-17 12:25
#140
 | 
Russia goodjob 
Ben Shapiro is really fucking smart
2018-10-17 13:14
Libtards triggered by FACTS and LOGIC
2018-10-17 13:35
#152
 | 
United States BLNDSPT 
ben shapiro so epic and epic
2018-10-17 13:54
okay, this is epic
2018-10-17 17:30
Man, how I miss Hitch.
2018-10-17 19:39
#177
 | 
Germany Jardeet 
Ben Shapiro is a smart person for dumb people, meaning only dumb people consider him smart.
2018-10-18 08:16
this
2018-10-18 08:31
this is so epic
2018-10-18 17:37
(((Ben Sharpiro))) the fake conservative's conservative!
2018-10-18 20:32
(((liberal))) trying to takeover from within btw. y'all got snowed.
2018-10-18 20:44
#191
 | 
Switzerland Evhron 
when people are wealth they turn to socialist? k
2018-10-18 21:00
Time to own some libreals le epic styles 😎😎😎
2018-10-18 21:02
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.