Is it that ironic? /u/SabadoGigantes' first page of user history goes back 11 days. That means 25 posts in the last 11 days. The second page goes back a month. 50 posts in a month.
I had to go back 5 pages- that's 125+ posts!- to get to anything that was older than 24 hours.
I can get over the Kochs funding climate change denialism too because I know that the best estimates of the effects of climate change is that it will have minimal impacts and advancing free markets and open borders will have a much stronger positive impact.
Open borders: Doubling global wealth
No carbon taxes: Like 5% less global wealth or whatever
Feel free to provide a source contradicting this. Make sure that those impacts are quantified in terms of wealth though and not "how many islands will be underwater" or "how many people will have to move". Tell me the impacts on global GDP.
Make sure that those impacts are quantified in terms of wealth though and not "how many islands will be underwater" or "how many brown people will have to move and it'll be like super sad and whatnot :(". Tell me the impacts on global GDP.
what the fuck you guys are like a leftist's malicious parody of the sociopathic economist
Yeah, we believe that costs and benefits of various policies should be weighed against eachother in order to determine policy priorities. I know that this is disfavored in the current year where policy is supposed to stem from what people are angry about on Twitter and Facebook, but what can I say.. intellectuals have been slow to catch on to how things work now.
Do you honestly have a behavioral disorder of some kind? Like one of the high-functioning variants of autism or sociopathty? I'm not even asking for insulting meme purposes I'm genuinely trying to find out why you're completely unable to understand what this disagreement is even about.
I suppose it could also just be that you spend a lot of time slapping down dumb left-wing kiddies when /r/neoliberal hits /r/all but, still, that's no excuse for behaving like this when I've given you no reason to at all and your core claim – best scientific estimates indicate climate change isn't a serious problem – is obviously ridiculous.
If the science indicated that I was wrong, wouldn't my high-functioning autism or sociopathy make me more likely to recognize this? I think you have to choose a narrative and go with it - "you're wrong on the science" or "you're a sociopath for having different empirical views than me". I'd encourage you to pick the former and provide some reasoning for it, because otherwise you haven't actually offered any sort of disagreement to anything I've said.
If the science indicated that I was wrong, wouldn't my alleged high-functioning autism or sociopathy make me more likely to recognize this?
I think his point is that it takes some pretty high powered autism or sociopathy to go all like, money is the only important measure because we can measure it easily, so fuck the 1 billion Africans who therefore have no moral worth, let's spill no tears about "how many brown people will have to move and it'll be like super sad and whatnot :(".
And no, whatever brain damage you have doesn't make you any likely at all to understand that when people react to you talking as if you were some weird many-legged bug, that's not them "virtue signaling", that's really their normal feelings that you lack.
I didn't say money is the important measure in and of itself, I appeal to money, as many economists do, because it provides a way of trying to quantify impacts and realize what kinds of tradeoffs you're making in supporting one costly policy over another. If you want to get super sad over brown people having to move due to climate change than you should probably get way more sad about brown people not being able to move because of shit immigration policies or about brown people not being able to improve their lives by working in sweatshops or whatever (yeah I said it!)
And I didn't invoke virtue signaling. I invoked the idea that people simply have shitty, rudimentary ways of evaluating these sorts of tradeoffs and I would argue that having a better framework of doing this does not meet any sort of psychiatric criteria.
Well, you see (or rather don't, that's the problem), there's a pretty huge difference between saying that we need evidence-based policies and for that we need ways to quantify their effects even though it's way more complicated than appeals to emotion, and saying that you have found the way to quantify effect, it's GDP, and you couldn't care less that it assigns literally 100 times more moral weight to an average American than to a Somalian, as a framework for evaluating outcomes. In fact you sound positively gleeful about it and quick to add insult to injury with that line about brown people having to move.
It's like you're parroting the edgier soundbites from neoliberals while completely missing the motivation to improve the human condition that was the context for them. It's not that those soundbites are wrong, it's the way you say this shit that makes you look "like a leftist's malicious parody of the sociopathic economist", in /u/EvanHarper's words.
I didn't say I found the way to evaluate these tradeoffs. I assert things in terms of GDP because I'm pretty sure that it will be a reasonable proxy for any good value system that takes tradeoffs seriously and doesn't rely on creating particularly-impactful sob anecdotes. eg. It's not that an American is worth 100x as much as a Somalian but that an American's productivity can affect a lot more lives than a Somalian's and we would be foolish to not take this into account in whatever evaluations.
Have you considered that I'm not parroting edgy shit, but instead that you and people like you are just ill-equipped to parse what I'm actually getting at? Ascribing sociopathy to me or people who use these sorts of frameworks just evidences a deficiency on your end.
It's not that an American is worth 100x as much as a Somalian but that an American's productivity can affect a lot more lives than a Somalian's and we would be foolish to not take this into account in whatever evaluations.
No, it literally means that if AGW kills all Somalians, but increases US GDP by 0.03%, this model would count that as a net positive. Or if it cuts Somalian GDP by half but increases US GDP by 0.015%.
Talk about horrific value systems that don't do utility discounting or assume that what can affect lives (like the US GDP increasing by 0.015%) will positively affect the Somalian lives.
Do you think academics and researchers that are used to this are just trying to out-edge eachother at conferences and panels? Ascribing sociopathy to me or people who use these sorts of frameworks just evidences a deficiency on your end.
Well, if those academics were saying shit like "how many brown people will have to move and it'll be like super sad and whatnot :(", I'd call them trying to out-edge each other as well. Since they don't and you do, you're wrong to group yourself together with them.
If you think that GDP is a poor proxy for what we should actually care about, please feel free to describe a set of values that dictates that we should care more about climate change than liberalizing trade/immigration policies.
My point was not the object issue, my point was that you explicitly said that you'd accept effect on gross world product, and only that as the measurement of effects of AGW. And disallowed lost utility due to "brown people having to move" specifically.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with the neoliberal approach as such (though I have my reservations about free trade etc, see this long thread (the OP deleted their post, but it's not essential)), I'm pointing out how your presentation of those arguments makes you look like an edgy teen who meta-contrarianally attached himself to radical centrism rather than the usual suspects. Sorry if that's actually the case ;-)
Yeah, I used edgier language than I would normally have because this is /r/drama. Mea culpa, consider me tone-policed.
My substantive points, however, still apply. I didn't disallow 'lost utility due to "brown people having to move" specifically' - this is just one part of the calculus and not the determinative factor. My insistence on wealth impacts comes from an empirical expectation that other measures offered will be worthless for various reasons and not an endorsement of the first-order value of wealth metrics.
lol u dum socio-autist u really think that if everyone except you dies but GDP still goes up that the world is super better great what a dum socio-autist u are lol u literally said that edgy autistopath lol what a dick u are lol WE REALLY CARE ABOUT AFRICANS
Thank you memercy for having more patience with this moron than I do. Just wanted to add:
You could straight up murder the half billion or so poorest people in the world with no change at all in observed GDP, because those people are subsisting outside the formal, exchange economy.
The IPCC report that he's touting as proof that climate change will only shave a point or two off GDP here and there does not in fact say that at all. That's a heavily qualified estimate that's acknowledge to be incomplete in important conceptual and empirical ways, and it's an estimate on the assumption that we take significant action to hold down the degree of warming to 2.5 degrees C by slashing CO2 emmissions. The report says it's impossible on current data to estimate how bad the damage will be for scenarios of 3+ degrees warming (his "who cares, immigration reform is more important and climate change is some SJW bullshit" proposal,) in part because such scenarios involve small but non-trivial possibilities of runaway "tipping point" global castrophes.
That's what libertarians/conservatives in mostly english speaking countries tell themselves about climate change to feel better about doing nothing (I'm looking at you Cato institute).
Why shouldn't people feel comfortable about things when the evidence indicates that they should? I tell myself that there aren't monsters under my bed to feel comfortable to myself, and thankfully I'm pretty sure I'm not just preparing myself to be ambushed someday by doing so. Discomfort is a limited resource that should be allocated towards things that actually are problems.
Many libertarians support some sort of carbon tax. I guess Cato doesn't - maybe that's the Koch influence. But progressives are generally not onboard with carbon taxes either because the best studies indicate that this won't actually lead to much mitigation, because the best science indicates that mitigation isn't actually that urgent.
Many progressives are on board with carbon taxes, just not in a revenue neutral way. Then you have centrists in most countries thinking about that already.
2% of world GDP is a lot, but not compared to the impacts of good trade/immigration policies. Do you really need sources for that? What are you actually disagreeing with me on?
When there are many places that already are pro immigration and free trade, there is no tradeoff between supporting that and things like carbon taxes. Koch support of denialism and austrian economics is probably enough to be pissed off at them. They are more ideologues than anything.
Support of austrian economics is not some sort of sin, lawl. We're not talking about supporting Murray Rothbard clones here, generally.
And we are clearly not anywhere close to having a cosmopolitan view on free trade and immigration. I think the benefits of pushing those issues easily outweigh the costs of climate denialism, although this is more debatable in why book than which issues are fundamentally more important to have good policies on.
Austrian economics hasn't done anything useful since Hayek. When someone unironically believes in stuff like praxeology and follows the Mises institute, it deserves mockery. It's nothing more than a bunch of pseudoscience.
A lot of self-described austrians do not ascribe to praxeological reasoning nor follow the Mises institute (and most outsiders are not aware of the internecine split that exists between the MI and the hated Koch-funded DC libertarians.)
The IPCC report in fact says that it's impossible to produce any meaningful estimate for the scenario in which we don't significantly reduce CO2 emmissions, in part because that scenario begins to involve unlikely but possible "tipping point" scenarios where the Earth's climate basically just hurtles out of control and we have no idea what happens afterwards or if there is even an afterwards.
There is a "2% or less of GDP" estimate in there, but it's A) for a cautiously-optimistic emmission reduction scenario in which we hold the total warming down to 2.5 degrees C and B) very heavily and unmistakably qualified, with like paragraphs worth of qualifications, about how it's a conceptually and empirically limited estimate that punts on a whole lot of important aspects of the problem because they're value-laden or hard to quantify.
Stop fucking lying about what the IPCC report says you arrogant shit
Wow there's uncertainty involved with the IPCC's predictions? I had no clue, you really got me there. Yeah, let's just cede to the precautionary principle and also turn off the internet while we're at it, never know when a rogue AI will be unleashed that kills us all.
I'm the person that wrote the climate change comment and I'm extremely happy that it caused so many tears. I can get over the Koch brothers funding climate change denialism because I agree with 90% of the shit the fund. I still think a carbon tax is important but I think there are other issues that are more important.
I disagree. As I said in this thread, it's a false dichotomy and the costs can't be handwaved. Also, the extremist anti government ideology they promote is awful enough by itself.
Yeah lol it's hilarious how people in the centre seems to trigger him way more than fascists and Trumptards. But then again, >expecting logic from a memearchist. It's only a matter of time until he fully snaps and starts doxxing people like kala
It turns out the secret to rustling Prince's jimmies isn't tankies threatening to canibalize him or helicopter ride memes but... mainstream economic thought
It's because he (rightfully) feels much more threatened by normal people supporting normal academic thought. It's sorta like Eric Hoffer's True Believer, which talks a lot about how communists were more easily led to being fascists than centrists and fascists were more easily led to being communists than centrists.
/u/Prince_Kropotkin feels more "threatened" (lol because these people already won, idiot) by regular folks than extremists because he thinks at least extremists want extreme change, he just needs to convince them that his way is the best way to do so. Normal people who are like "I don't like this thing, and we need to change it incrementally using the systems already in place" anger him the most, and I think that's cute.
I think one obvious vulnerability on his end is the fact that he claims to be an econ grad student and as such claim some sort of intellectual authority and respectability that can be leveraged against anarkids and tumblrinas, but... well-informed people realize that being an econ student and a left-anarchist is... well, odd. Like being a conservative gender studies professor - I'm sure people have tried to square that circle but it certainly does not reflect mainstream professional thought and insofar as you fail to satisfy some sort of affirmative burden for why you're controverting that thought people "in the know" aren't going to take you very seriously.
Instead he reverts to sounding like an SJW when people who are familiar with economics talk in the ways that people who are familiar with economics tend to talk.
This is what it comes down to. He gets very religious when it comes to brass tacks.
I think one obvious vulnerability on his end is the fact that he claims to be an econ grad student and as such claim some sort of intellectual authority
I don't believe for a second prince crackpotkin is an econ grad student
I dunno about that, he linked a thread that he claimed was good arguments against neoliberals, where the argument was literally:
I can build a wall around your house and charge you to leave hahahaha capitalism sucks don't you feel like a slave
I feel someone with even a single Econ course would realize that's not true at all, centrists are usually pretty serious about property rights and being able to access public lands and stuff like roads. I think he's just got good enough google-fu to sound like he's informed on the topic.
Wow, that's really bad. Can anyone link me to anything that might even remotely demonstrate that he has a formal background in economics? It's actually really common to encounter the "I'm actually an Econ student" defense from people arguing for non-mainstream economics.
In fact, a few weeks ago I was watching a protest put on by some socialist student org on campus and got to talking with some guy. I asked him what his major was and he said math, then he asked me, and when I said Econ he sorta waited a beat then said me too. I was really skeptical because he claimed to be a senior and I had never seen him before. When I asked him if he was actually an Econ major he said "economics, it's all tautological anyways" then walked off.
Add to that that he's a second top mod of /r/LeftWithoutEdge, which is supposed to be a place for convincing regular people about left ideas using logic and reason instead of threatening gulags. Naturally, a self proclaimed bastion of radical centrism steals slightly less than all of their target audience, so /u/Prince_Kropotkin is naturally jealous and upset as fuck!
the funny thing is that his method of attack in this example is 'quote a bunch of shit, which I have clearly been lurking and screencapping for weeks, waiting for my chance to pounce'.
Except that he knows why that's a stupid idea, because literally every major socialism/anarchism is way worse, and he's literally part of the drama trying to take over those subreddits. /r/neoliberal has a problem where sometimes users say dumb things, and generally get downvoted or banned. This is because /r/neoliberal doesn't ban anyone for dissent or being wrong/dumb. /r/socialism does ban heavily, and somehow still manages to support 'stalin did nothing wrong' idiocy. /r/anarchism advocates murder as official mod-supported policy, and has even insinuated that reddit admins could be a target.
if you want to play the 'pick the worst quotes to represent the subreddit' game, /r/neoliberal is going to come out faaaaaaaar better than any of the other radical ideologies imo.
Yeah it's disappointing that the best he has on r/neoliberal is some wishy-washiness on climate change and supporting gentrification. Can I remind you that there were r/anarchism posters rabbling about killing police officers via burning them alive a couple weeks ago.
I don't feel this is that accurate, because he wouldn't be constantly exposing the lunacy of the anarchists in that case as that undermines them when you're supposing he wants the "extremists" strengthened.
Well when you look at history it's always the progressives that win. Never the communists or the conservatives or the libertarians or the reactionaries - always the progressives.
So he should feel threatened by them, as should we all. What sounds like laughable tumblrisms today could be mainstream democrat policy in 10 years and mainstream republican policy in 30.
Oh this is so not true. Foreign policy in the 1600s (and for most of human history) was essentially independent of a foreign nation's governance. Foreign policy was the matter of one state dealing with another. The idea of interfering in internal matters was ridiculous. Stuart England would never be supporting Syrian rebels or "spreading monarchy" the way we spread democracy.
Not to mention there wasn't this idea of "ought to" in settling disputes. The 17th century answer to Israel and Palestine is clear: Israel owns it because Israel controls it. It doesn't matter who deserves it or how anyone feels, de facto ownership is lawful ownership.
Westphalian sovereignty is essentially dead today.
This is nothing compared to the SRD thread that got him banned for arguing about Democrats being fuckups.
Sometimes I wish I had the energy to believe as much as PK does in a new, better society, but then I start to get anxious thinking about an anarchist society not providing me with my weekly suboxone.
I don't think PK is a bad person. I generally use his posts to determine what needs to be improved about the subreddit.
However, he's going absolutely batshit crazy recently- just putting in massive effort to denounce this sub. I don't understand how a sub consisting of moderate republicans and democrats could piss anyone off this much. I mean, we literally have actual Nazis and fascists on this website.
Moreover, libertarians (somewhat similar to neoliberals) beleive in all the same shit except for government helping the poor.
I literally cannot understand why he's going after a mostly centrist sub rather than the much larger, more popular right-wing ones.
As much as mayocide and hating on poor whites is a meme here, I do feel like we go overboard sometimes. We should also talk more about how our solutions are the best for poor whites (while making sure we don't come off as paternalistic) by discussing stuff like job retraining programs or technocratic solutions to the opiod epidemic like clean injection sites.
Larger, more popular right wing subs? Like what? Everybody hates on /r/the_donald, and /r/shitpoliticssays is small enough to slip under the radar. Is there something I'm missing here?
/r/conservative, /r/libertarian, and /r/republican are all larger subs with the same evils (read: capitalism) that promote less socially liberal policies (redistribution, multiculturalism, increased immigration) than we do.
Leftists go after centrists because they are a harder target. It's hard to come against right wing populism and differentiate yourself from liberals so in order to self-segregate they pour their efforts at mocking moderates.
nazis and fascists don't really have any power irl though, outside a handful of backwaters. it makes sense to be a lot more upset about the ideology that's actively fucking up the world right now than a bunch of fringe retards on the internet.
I will bet any amount of money that his sudden extremism is because he met some hippie slut in college (or high school, more probably) that he's trying to impress
Wait a moment, I'm a noob in this area, but did you guys just come to a "most people are dumb so we need a smaller, more intelligent community" conclusion while talking about the merits of socialism?
Imagine being a PhD student in economics and being so upset at mainstream economics that you have a bunch of links saved up to make fun of random internet retards which say they support mainstream economics.
well see that's where you're wrong kiddo, because depending on who you talk to us (((neolibs))) are either autists, nazis, commies, or controlling the media.
My favorite part of both Hillary vs. Bernie, and of Trump's cultural victory, was the "time to reign it in" moment for a left that had plainly let two obama victories get to their heads.
The ridiculousness was dead weight and some of it had to go. Tohey've decided (perhaps out of resentment towards berners) to evict the "capitalism and economics itself is evil" attitude (free college for everyone!). This is probably the best choice because that attitude hasn't been paying its rent of keeping a handful of the white male ideologues in the party.
My favorite part of both Hillary vs. Bernie, and of Trump's cultural victory, was the "time to reign it in" moment for a left that had plainly let two obama victories get to their heads.
The ridiculousness was dead weight and some of it had to go. Looks like they've decided (perhaps out of resentment towards berners) to evict the "economics itself is evil" attitude (free college for everyone!). This is probably a good stategic choice because that attitude hasn't been paying its rent of keeping white males in their 20s in the party.
was the "time to reign it in" moment for a left that had plainly let two obama victories get to their heads.
As much as I can't appreciate how someone could think that because we like Obama we'll like SJWs, I can't understand how someone could be so mad at SJWs that they decide to become Trump supporters.
How dumb are people that vote on social issues? Worst of the worst.
I'm not really talking about SJWs, or even mainly about social issues. I'm not sure where you got that from? I feel like you really want to talk about another topic (look at these bad people!) than the one I'm talking about.
Purely on policy, Democrats were stretching themselves too thin.
I'm saying that what you talked about wasn't about policy at all, it was about random social issues that people should feel bad about basing their votes on.
"free college for everyone" is a policy. And it alienated mainstream voters who felt the left was unresponsive to their needs as a constituency. The amount of Americans who take on a lot of debt for private school or an out of date school is actually a very small amount of the population.
I'm saying that what you talked about wasn't about policy at all, it was about random social issues that people should feel bad about basing their votes on.
Again, you're really not reading anything I say and just talking past me. You have this thing you want to argue with me about it and you have no interest in letting my actual stance here get in the way of that. It seems you'd rather paint me as this enemy you have in your head than admit that you got the wrong guy here.
If you go through PK's list one by one most of the things on there are either down voted below zero or have less votes than the people they're arguing with. The ones that are really bad are mostly us saying that we place less value on climate change or racism compared to economic issues, which is bad, but mitigated by the fact that it's mostly hypothetical scenarios. Besides, compared to the sort of shit that goes on in /r/conservative, /r/socialism, /r/FULLCOMMUNISM, /r/ourrevolution, /r/latestagecapitalism, /r/libertarian, or of course /r/the_Donald, I don't think we're doing badly, especially considering that we don't have purity tests and don't ban people just for dissenting. I'm not sure why PK gets so riled up against us specifically.
The ones that are really bad are mostly us saying that we place less value on climate change or racism compared to economic issues, which is bad
Why is this objectively bad? If economics has the ability to double a nation's income/it's peoples over two decades or so, how is that objectively less important than those things?
I'm not convinced that applying direct utilitarianism here is a great idea. In these offhand hypotheticals, this sort of deal with the devil might justifiable, but in real life, there's almost always a better way. It also just makes us look like we don't care about certain issues and makes us look cold to the outside, which is exactly why it was included in this post.
138 comments
n/a SnapshillBot 2017-05-21
Did you know that the bathtub was first marketed in north america as a horse trough and dog scalder?
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
n/a Assy-McGee 2017-05-21
[N E O L I B E R A L S](#intensifies]
n/a Matues49 2017-05-21
MFW
n/a TotesMessenger 2017-05-21
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
n/a Matues49 2017-05-21
u/Prince_Kropotkin
u rn
n/a fucked_my_shit_up 2017-05-21
Can we get flair for Prince_Crackpotkin posts yet? We have one basically every day at this point.
n/a SabadoGigantes 2017-05-21
The guy lives on reddit, it's actually his social life. He's defined by being against THE ESTABLISHMENT, it's quite hilarious.
n/a working_class_shill 2017-05-21
this is very ironic considering how often you boys make threads devoted to him in this sub
n/a ImNotPayingFullPrice 2017-05-21
Is it that ironic? /u/SabadoGigantes' first page of user history goes back 11 days. That means 25 posts in the last 11 days. The second page goes back a month. 50 posts in a month.
I had to go back 5 pages- that's 125+ posts!- to get to anything that was older than 24 hours.
So no, it doesn't seem that ironic.
n/a TheEquimanthorn 2017-05-21
That's only acceptable if at least half of them were shitposts on r/drama
n/a ImNotPayingFullPrice 2017-05-21
Sadly, not even close.
n/a SabadoGigantes 2017-05-21
He caught me!
n/a bleasehalb 2017-05-21
He frequently creates threads on here all by himself. If we don't go out and get he'll knock on our door and deliver it to us for real.
n/a StingAuer 2017-05-21
I want you to enter my thrussy and exit my bussy simultaneously.
n/a mtg_liebestod 2017-05-21
I can get over the Kochs funding climate change denialism too because I know that the best estimates of the effects of climate change is that it will have minimal impacts and advancing free markets and open borders will have a much stronger positive impact.
Open borders: Doubling global wealth No carbon taxes: Like 5% less global wealth or whatever
Why do these people hate the global poor?
n/a bareballzthebitch 2017-05-21
Do they need a reason?
n/a EvanHarper 2017-05-21
uh
n/a mtg_liebestod 2017-05-21
Feel free to provide a source contradicting this. Make sure that those impacts are quantified in terms of wealth though and not "how many islands will be underwater" or "how many people will have to move". Tell me the impacts on global GDP.
n/a EvanHarper 2017-05-21
what the fuck you guys are like a leftist's malicious parody of the sociopathic economist
n/a mtg_liebestod 2017-05-21
Yeah, we believe that costs and benefits of various policies should be weighed against eachother in order to determine policy priorities. I know that this is disfavored in the current year where policy is supposed to stem from what people are angry about on Twitter and Facebook, but what can I say.. intellectuals have been slow to catch on to how things work now.
n/a EvanHarper 2017-05-21
Do you honestly have a behavioral disorder of some kind? Like one of the high-functioning variants of autism or sociopathty? I'm not even asking for insulting meme purposes I'm genuinely trying to find out why you're completely unable to understand what this disagreement is even about.
I suppose it could also just be that you spend a lot of time slapping down dumb left-wing kiddies when /r/neoliberal hits /r/all but, still, that's no excuse for behaving like this when I've given you no reason to at all and your core claim – best scientific estimates indicate climate change isn't a serious problem – is obviously ridiculous.
n/a mtg_liebestod 2017-05-21
If the science indicated that I was wrong, wouldn't my high-functioning autism or sociopathy make me more likely to recognize this? I think you have to choose a narrative and go with it - "you're wrong on the science" or "you're a sociopath for having different empirical views than me". I'd encourage you to pick the former and provide some reasoning for it, because otherwise you haven't actually offered any sort of disagreement to anything I've said.
n/a EvanHarper 2017-05-21
Shit, you're right. I withdraw my previous disagreement and I'm sorry for wasting your time.
n/a Works_of_memercy 2017-05-21
I think his point is that it takes some pretty high powered autism or sociopathy to go all like, money is the only important measure because we can measure it easily, so fuck the 1 billion Africans who therefore have no moral worth, let's spill no tears about "how many brown people will have to move and it'll be like super sad and whatnot :(".
And no, whatever brain damage you have doesn't make you any likely at all to understand that when people react to you talking as if you were some weird many-legged bug, that's not them "virtue signaling", that's really their normal feelings that you lack.
n/a mtg_liebestod 2017-05-21
I didn't say money is the important measure in and of itself, I appeal to money, as many economists do, because it provides a way of trying to quantify impacts and realize what kinds of tradeoffs you're making in supporting one costly policy over another. If you want to get super sad over brown people having to move due to climate change than you should probably get way more sad about brown people not being able to move because of shit immigration policies or about brown people not being able to improve their lives by working in sweatshops or whatever (yeah I said it!)
And I didn't invoke virtue signaling. I invoked the idea that people simply have shitty, rudimentary ways of evaluating these sorts of tradeoffs and I would argue that having a better framework of doing this does not meet any sort of psychiatric criteria.
n/a Works_of_memercy 2017-05-21
Well, you see (or rather don't, that's the problem), there's a pretty huge difference between saying that we need evidence-based policies and for that we need ways to quantify their effects even though it's way more complicated than appeals to emotion, and saying that you have found the way to quantify effect, it's GDP, and you couldn't care less that it assigns literally 100 times more moral weight to an average American than to a Somalian, as a framework for evaluating outcomes. In fact you sound positively gleeful about it and quick to add insult to injury with that line about brown people having to move.
It's like you're parroting the edgier soundbites from neoliberals while completely missing the motivation to improve the human condition that was the context for them. It's not that those soundbites are wrong, it's the way you say this shit that makes you look "like a leftist's malicious parody of the sociopathic economist", in /u/EvanHarper's words.
n/a mtg_liebestod 2017-05-21
I didn't say I found the way to evaluate these tradeoffs. I assert things in terms of GDP because I'm pretty sure that it will be a reasonable proxy for any good value system that takes tradeoffs seriously and doesn't rely on creating particularly-impactful sob anecdotes. eg. It's not that an American is worth 100x as much as a Somalian but that an American's productivity can affect a lot more lives than a Somalian's and we would be foolish to not take this into account in whatever evaluations.
Have you considered that I'm not parroting edgy shit, but instead that you and people like you are just ill-equipped to parse what I'm actually getting at? Ascribing sociopathy to me or people who use these sorts of frameworks just evidences a deficiency on your end.
n/a Works_of_memercy 2017-05-21
No, it literally means that if AGW kills all Somalians, but increases US GDP by 0.03%, this model would count that as a net positive. Or if it cuts Somalian GDP by half but increases US GDP by 0.015%.
Talk about horrific value systems that don't do utility discounting or assume that what can affect lives (like the US GDP increasing by 0.015%) will positively affect the Somalian lives.
Well, if those academics were saying shit like "how many brown people will have to move and it'll be like super sad and whatnot :(", I'd call them trying to out-edge each other as well. Since they don't and you do, you're wrong to group yourself together with them.
My point was not the object issue, my point was that you explicitly said that you'd accept effect on gross world product, and only that as the measurement of effects of AGW. And disallowed lost utility due to "brown people having to move" specifically.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with the neoliberal approach as such (though I have my reservations about free trade etc, see this long thread (the OP deleted their post, but it's not essential)), I'm pointing out how your presentation of those arguments makes you look like an edgy teen who meta-contrarianally attached himself to radical centrism rather than the usual suspects. Sorry if that's actually the case ;-)
n/a mtg_liebestod 2017-05-21
Yeah, I used edgier language than I would normally have because this is /r/drama. Mea culpa, consider me tone-policed.
My substantive points, however, still apply. I didn't disallow 'lost utility due to "brown people having to move" specifically' - this is just one part of the calculus and not the determinative factor. My insistence on wealth impacts comes from an empirical expectation that other measures offered will be worthless for various reasons and not an endorsement of the first-order value of wealth metrics.
n/a TooManyBlackSwans 2017-05-21
lol u dum socio-autist u really think that if everyone except you dies but GDP still goes up that the world is super better great what a dum socio-autist u are lol u literally said that edgy autistopath lol what a dick u are lol WE REALLY CARE ABOUT AFRICANS
n/a EvanHarper 2017-05-21
Thank you memercy for having more patience with this moron than I do. Just wanted to add:
You could straight up murder the half billion or so poorest people in the world with no change at all in observed GDP, because those people are subsisting outside the formal, exchange economy.
The IPCC report that he's touting as proof that climate change will only shave a point or two off GDP here and there does not in fact say that at all. That's a heavily qualified estimate that's acknowledge to be incomplete in important conceptual and empirical ways, and it's an estimate on the assumption that we take significant action to hold down the degree of warming to 2.5 degrees C by slashing CO2 emmissions. The report says it's impossible on current data to estimate how bad the damage will be for scenarios of 3+ degrees warming (his "who cares, immigration reform is more important and climate change is some SJW bullshit" proposal,) in part because such scenarios involve small but non-trivial possibilities of runaway "tipping point" global castrophes.
Arrogant fucking idiot.
n/a TooManyBlackSwans 2017-05-21
I can tell this guy really cares about the africans.
n/a Eifert 2017-05-21
Yikes
n/a HodorTheDoorHolder 2017-05-21
Minimal impacts to macroeconomics
n/a Neronoah 2017-05-21
That's what libertarians/conservatives in mostly english speaking countries tell themselves about climate change to feel better about doing nothing (I'm looking at you Cato institute).
n/a mtg_liebestod 2017-05-21
Why shouldn't people feel comfortable about things when the evidence indicates that they should? I tell myself that there aren't monsters under my bed to feel comfortable to myself, and thankfully I'm pretty sure I'm not just preparing myself to be ambushed someday by doing so. Discomfort is a limited resource that should be allocated towards things that actually are problems.
Many libertarians support some sort of carbon tax. I guess Cato doesn't - maybe that's the Koch influence. But progressives are generally not onboard with carbon taxes either because the best studies indicate that this won't actually lead to much mitigation, because the best science indicates that mitigation isn't actually that urgent.
n/a Neronoah 2017-05-21
Many progressives are on board with carbon taxes, just not in a revenue neutral way. Then you have centrists in most countries thinking about that already.
Also, the best science doesn't say that.
n/a mtg_liebestod 2017-05-21
I do not think that progressives would be onboard with carbon taxes if they realized that reasonable carbon taxes would not achieve much mitigation.
I cited the IPCC report. You cited... what, yourself?
n/a Neronoah 2017-05-21
2% of world GDP is a lot. What the fuck.
n/a mtg_liebestod 2017-05-21
2% of world GDP is a lot, but not compared to the impacts of good trade/immigration policies. Do you really need sources for that? What are you actually disagreeing with me on?
n/a Neronoah 2017-05-21
When there are many places that already are pro immigration and free trade, there is no tradeoff between supporting that and things like carbon taxes. Koch support of denialism and austrian economics is probably enough to be pissed off at them. They are more ideologues than anything.
n/a mtg_liebestod 2017-05-21
Support of austrian economics is not some sort of sin, lawl. We're not talking about supporting Murray Rothbard clones here, generally.
And we are clearly not anywhere close to having a cosmopolitan view on free trade and immigration. I think the benefits of pushing those issues easily outweigh the costs of climate denialism, although this is more debatable in why book than which issues are fundamentally more important to have good policies on.
n/a Neronoah 2017-05-21
Austrian economics hasn't done anything useful since Hayek. When someone unironically believes in stuff like praxeology and follows the Mises institute, it deserves mockery. It's nothing more than a bunch of pseudoscience.
n/a mtg_liebestod 2017-05-21
A lot of self-described austrians do not ascribe to praxeological reasoning nor follow the Mises institute (and most outsiders are not aware of the internecine split that exists between the MI and the hated Koch-funded DC libertarians.)
n/a Neronoah 2017-05-21
Congratulations for following a slightly less shity variation of the Austrian School then.
n/a Eifert 2017-05-21
lol even /r/neoliberal thinks Austrians are a bunch of jokers who can't do math
n/a mtg_liebestod 2017-05-21
A lot of them are.
n/a EvanHarper 2017-05-21
The IPCC report in fact says that it's impossible to produce any meaningful estimate for the scenario in which we don't significantly reduce CO2 emmissions, in part because that scenario begins to involve unlikely but possible "tipping point" scenarios where the Earth's climate basically just hurtles out of control and we have no idea what happens afterwards or if there is even an afterwards.
There is a "2% or less of GDP" estimate in there, but it's A) for a cautiously-optimistic emmission reduction scenario in which we hold the total warming down to 2.5 degrees C and B) very heavily and unmistakably qualified, with like paragraphs worth of qualifications, about how it's a conceptually and empirically limited estimate that punts on a whole lot of important aspects of the problem because they're value-laden or hard to quantify.
Stop fucking lying about what the IPCC report says you arrogant shit
n/a mtg_liebestod 2017-05-21
Wow there's uncertainty involved with the IPCC's predictions? I had no clue, you really got me there. Yeah, let's just cede to the precautionary principle and also turn off the internet while we're at it, never know when a rogue AI will be unleashed that kills us all.
n/a EvanHarper 2017-05-21
bahahaha you've got nothing
n/a mtg_liebestod 2017-05-21
Nothing I can be bothered to phrase in a way you'd understand, at least.
n/a janus423 2017-05-21
I'm the person that wrote the climate change comment and I'm extremely happy that it caused so many tears. I can get over the Koch brothers funding climate change denialism because I agree with 90% of the shit the fund. I still think a carbon tax is important but I think there are other issues that are more important.
n/a Neronoah 2017-05-21
I disagree. As I said in this thread, it's a false dichotomy and the costs can't be handwaved. Also, the extremist anti government ideology they promote is awful enough by itself.
n/a YHofSuburbia 2017-05-21
The rise of r/neoliberal has really caused PK to lose his marbles. Shame, he used to be pretty cool
n/a Assy-McGee 2017-05-21
his spergout in the thread reminds me of what kaaaaaaaaalaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa used to be
n/a YHofSuburbia 2017-05-21
Yeah lol it's hilarious how people in the centre seems to trigger him way more than fascists and Trumptards. But then again, >expecting logic from a memearchist. It's only a matter of time until he fully snaps and starts doxxing people like kala
n/a Oxus007 2017-05-21
Shhh you'll summon him
n/a AntiLuke 2017-05-21
I feel like he's always here anyway.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-21
https://imgur.com/a/klese
happened
n/a imguralbumbot 2017-05-21
Hi, I'm a bot for linking direct images of albums with only 1 image
https://i.imgur.com/TDkbgI4.png
Source | Why? | Creator | ignoreme
n/a coco-o 2017-05-21
It turns out the secret to rustling Prince's jimmies isn't tankies threatening to canibalize him or helicopter ride memes but... mainstream economic thought
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-05-21
/r/neoliberal does far more than just talk about "mainstream economic thought" though.
n/a zzzzz94 2017-05-21
we need more poli sci students/grads
n/a darkaceAUS 2017-05-21
Hey that's me!
n/a marsjazztrio 2017-05-21
It's because he (rightfully) feels much more threatened by normal people supporting normal academic thought. It's sorta like Eric Hoffer's True Believer, which talks a lot about how communists were more easily led to being fascists than centrists and fascists were more easily led to being communists than centrists.
/u/Prince_Kropotkin feels more "threatened" (lol because these people already won, idiot) by regular folks than extremists because he thinks at least extremists want extreme change, he just needs to convince them that his way is the best way to do so. Normal people who are like "I don't like this thing, and we need to change it incrementally using the systems already in place" anger him the most, and I think that's cute.
n/a mtg_liebestod 2017-05-21
I think one obvious vulnerability on his end is the fact that he claims to be an econ grad student and as such claim some sort of intellectual authority and respectability that can be leveraged against anarkids and tumblrinas, but... well-informed people realize that being an econ student and a left-anarchist is... well, odd. Like being a conservative gender studies professor - I'm sure people have tried to square that circle but it certainly does not reflect mainstream professional thought and insofar as you fail to satisfy some sort of affirmative burden for why you're controverting that thought people "in the know" aren't going to take you very seriously.
n/a itsaboyffxiv 2017-05-21
This is what it comes down to. He gets very religious when it comes to brass tacks.
n/a zzzzz94 2017-05-21
I don't believe for a second prince crackpotkin is an econ grad student
n/a mtg_liebestod 2017-05-21
iirc he's cited some stuff that indicates to me that he at least knows more than your average internet rando with strong opinions on economic policy.
n/a bloodraven42 2017-05-21
I dunno about that, he linked a thread that he claimed was good arguments against neoliberals, where the argument was literally:
I feel someone with even a single Econ course would realize that's not true at all, centrists are usually pretty serious about property rights and being able to access public lands and stuff like roads. I think he's just got good enough google-fu to sound like he's informed on the topic.
n/a Qwertyytrewq12344321 2017-05-21
Wow, that's really bad. Can anyone link me to anything that might even remotely demonstrate that he has a formal background in economics? It's actually really common to encounter the "I'm actually an Econ student" defense from people arguing for non-mainstream economics.
In fact, a few weeks ago I was watching a protest put on by some socialist student org on campus and got to talking with some guy. I asked him what his major was and he said math, then he asked me, and when I said Econ he sorta waited a beat then said me too. I was really skeptical because he claimed to be a senior and I had never seen him before. When I asked him if he was actually an Econ major he said "economics, it's all tautological anyways" then walked off.
n/a Works_of_memercy 2017-05-21
Add to that that he's a second top mod of /r/LeftWithoutEdge, which is supposed to be a place for convincing regular people about left ideas using logic and reason instead of threatening gulags. Naturally, a self proclaimed bastion of radical centrism steals slightly less than all of their target audience, so /u/Prince_Kropotkin is naturally jealous and upset as fuck!
n/a MrDannyOcean 2017-05-21
the funny thing is that his method of attack in this example is 'quote a bunch of shit, which I have clearly been lurking and screencapping for weeks, waiting for my chance to pounce'.
Except that he knows why that's a stupid idea, because literally every major socialism/anarchism is way worse, and he's literally part of the drama trying to take over those subreddits. /r/neoliberal has a problem where sometimes users say dumb things, and generally get downvoted or banned. This is because /r/neoliberal doesn't ban anyone for dissent or being wrong/dumb. /r/socialism does ban heavily, and somehow still manages to support 'stalin did nothing wrong' idiocy. /r/anarchism advocates murder as official mod-supported policy, and has even insinuated that reddit admins could be a target.
if you want to play the 'pick the worst quotes to represent the subreddit' game, /r/neoliberal is going to come out faaaaaaaar better than any of the other radical ideologies imo.
n/a coco-o 2017-05-21
Yeah it's disappointing that the best he has on r/neoliberal is some wishy-washiness on climate change and supporting gentrification. Can I remind you that there were r/anarchism posters rabbling about killing police officers via burning them alive a couple weeks ago.
n/a Card-nal 2017-05-21
/u/Prince_Kropotkin how do you respond to these infallible charges of you being a fucking moron? With moronsplaining?
n/a BigBrainsonBradley 2017-05-21
He didn't think that far ahead, he's an anarchist.
n/a BigBrainsonBradley 2017-05-21
/u/Prince_Kropotkin has been getting BTFO by normies for months now, I'm glad other people are getting on board.
n/a HivemindBuster 2017-05-21
I don't feel this is that accurate, because he wouldn't be constantly exposing the lunacy of the anarchists in that case as that undermines them when you're supposing he wants the "extremists" strengthened.
n/a freet0 2017-05-21
Well when you look at history it's always the progressives that win. Never the communists or the conservatives or the libertarians or the reactionaries - always the progressives.
So he should feel threatened by them, as should we all. What sounds like laughable tumblrisms today could be mainstream democrat policy in 10 years and mainstream republican policy in 30.
n/a HobbesCalvinandLocke 2017-05-21
Except in actual foreign policy, which has been pretty consistent since the Treaty of Westphalia.
n/a freet0 2017-05-21
Oh this is so not true. Foreign policy in the 1600s (and for most of human history) was essentially independent of a foreign nation's governance. Foreign policy was the matter of one state dealing with another. The idea of interfering in internal matters was ridiculous. Stuart England would never be supporting Syrian rebels or "spreading monarchy" the way we spread democracy.
Not to mention there wasn't this idea of "ought to" in settling disputes. The 17th century answer to Israel and Palestine is clear: Israel owns it because Israel controls it. It doesn't matter who deserves it or how anyone feels, de facto ownership is lawful ownership.
Westphalian sovereignty is essentially dead today.
n/a HobbesCalvinandLocke 2017-05-21
Why do you think I chose that event?
n/a Plexipus 2017-05-21
... It was his ... Kroptokynite.
n/a lultopkek 2017-05-21
This is nothing compared to the SRD thread that got him banned for arguing about Democrats being fuckups.
Sometimes I wish I had the energy to believe as much as PK does in a new, better society, but then I start to get anxious thinking about an anarchist society not providing me with my weekly suboxone.
n/a DracoX872 2017-05-21
I don't think PK is a bad person. I generally use his posts to determine what needs to be improved about the subreddit.
However, he's going absolutely batshit crazy recently- just putting in massive effort to denounce this sub. I don't understand how a sub consisting of moderate republicans and democrats could piss anyone off this much. I mean, we literally have actual Nazis and fascists on this website.
Moreover, libertarians (somewhat similar to neoliberals) beleive in all the same shit except for government helping the poor.
I literally cannot understand why he's going after a mostly centrist sub rather than the much larger, more popular right-wing ones.
n/a forlackofabetterword 2017-05-21
As much as mayocide and hating on poor whites is a meme here, I do feel like we go overboard sometimes. We should also talk more about how our solutions are the best for poor whites (while making sure we don't come off as paternalistic) by discussing stuff like job retraining programs or technocratic solutions to the opiod epidemic like clean injection sites.
n/a subpoutine 2017-05-21
Someone please ban this paleface.
n/a TheEhSteve 2017-05-21
n/a Ennui2778 2017-05-21
Larger, more popular right wing subs? Like what? Everybody hates on /r/the_donald, and /r/shitpoliticssays is small enough to slip under the radar. Is there something I'm missing here?
n/a DracoX872 2017-05-21
/r/conservative, /r/libertarian, and /r/republican are all larger subs with the same evils (read: capitalism) that promote less socially liberal policies (redistribution, multiculturalism, increased immigration) than we do.
n/a siempreloco31 2017-05-21
Leftists go after centrists because they are a harder target. It's hard to come against right wing populism and differentiate yourself from liberals so in order to self-segregate they pour their efforts at mocking moderates.
n/a glmox 2017-05-21
nazis and fascists don't really have any power irl though, outside a handful of backwaters. it makes sense to be a lot more upset about the ideology that's actively fucking up the world right now than a bunch of fringe retards on the internet.
n/a yesitsfrankenstein 2017-05-21
This, but also if you think this you're a college kid.
Like this makes the most sense if you're 22.
n/a CaptainMemer 2017-05-21
The thing I miss the most about college is all the free time I had.
n/a cavides 2017-05-21
Is he really rich or is that just a meme?
n/a JohnBlind 2017-05-21
It's the thin line between memes and reality because anarchists and commies are always upper/middle class students
Which PK proves here because he names fucking Rojava as a lefty succes
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-21
"Anarchism works when it's supported by the USAF"
n/a darth_stroyer 2017-05-21
"A small state that was created during a violent civil war is not a good indicator of ideological success unless it actually works"
n/a JohnBlind 2017-05-21
It's just laughably obvious that everything he knows about Rojava comes from middleclass mayo newspapers :^)
n/a subpoutine 2017-05-21
I believe about how he's paying for his PhD or something.
n/a Neronoah 2017-05-21
Picking a fight with a whole sub tends to cause that.
n/a Elite_AI 2017-05-21
Am I missing some spergout or is the drama "/u/prince_kropotkin is a socialist"?
n/a working_class_shill 2017-05-21
there's a thread about him probably every other day here.
people are obsessed lol
n/a Elite_AI 2017-05-21
Understandably. He was/is a big part of this community, so his "fall" is morbidly interesting. I'm just wondering what this particular drama is.
n/a SpectroSpecter 2017-05-21
I will bet any amount of money that his sudden extremism is because he met some hippie slut in college (or high school, more probably) that he's trying to impress
n/a Elite_AI 2017-05-21
I think he's just butthurt.
n/a TheEquimanthorn 2017-05-21
From the hippie slut pegging him
n/a HeresCyonnah 2017-05-21
How much is the working class paying you, shill?
n/a Nomadlads 2017-05-21
It's just him sperging.
n/a Teresa_May 2017-05-21
that boy had a family
n/a menvaren 2017-05-21
That's fantastic.
n/a AgentGotse 2017-05-21
Imagine being a PhD student in economics and being so upset at mainstream economics that you have a bunch of links saved up to make fun of random internet retards which say they support mainstream economics.
n/a Eternal_Mr_Bones 2017-05-21
His PI must be on suicide watch.
n/a StezzerLolz 2017-05-21
When you put it like that, why are they not an /r/drama regular?
n/a Wordshark 2017-05-21
...they are?
n/a carthoris26 2017-05-21
Consider suicide.
n/a StezzerLolz 2017-05-21
*sudokus*
n/a IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-05-21
[MAYOCIDING INTENSIFIES]
n/a skivian 2017-05-21
has Prince ever posted about his thesis? I bet it's great.
n/a some-other 2017-05-21
Oh, you mean /r/HillBotsAreTotesNormies.
n/a IDontGiveADoot 2017-05-21
ok yeah that's great but what about
FULLY
n/a that-other-username 2017-05-21
CAPITALIST
n/a Nomadlads 2017-05-21
ANAL
n/a Sporz 2017-05-21
HARDCORE
n/a 1t_ 2017-05-21
TACO
n/a that-other-username 2017-05-21
TRUCKS
n/a sharingan10 2017-05-21
WITH
n/a that-other-username 2017-05-21
OPEN
n/a sharingan10 2017-05-21
BORDERS
n/a StingAuer 2017-05-21
AUTOMATICALLY
n/a DoctorFahrenheit 2017-05-21
Neoliberal needs to be smothered in its crib. There is no room in politics for this moderate Bush-era nonsense.
I demand that politics in America remain Reality TV stars and Nazis vs. (((The Media))) and Commies
n/a BadEThrowaway 2017-05-21
well see that's where you're wrong kiddo, because depending on who you talk to us (((neolibs))) are either autists, nazis, commies, or controlling the media.
n/a StingAuer 2017-05-21
Tankies hate neoliberals because they're reactionary.
Nazis hate neoliberals because they aren't necessarily in favor of racial purges.
n/a SineadObama 2017-05-21
My favorite part of both Hillary vs. Bernie, and of Trump's cultural victory, was the "time to reign it in" moment for a left that had plainly let two obama victories get to their heads.
The ridiculousness was dead weight and some of it had to go. Tohey've decided (perhaps out of resentment towards berners) to evict the "capitalism and economics itself is evil" attitude (free college for everyone!). This is probably the best choice because that attitude hasn't been paying its rent of keeping a handful of the white male ideologues in the party.
n/a SineadObama 2017-05-21
My favorite part of both Hillary vs. Bernie, and of Trump's cultural victory, was the "time to reign it in" moment for a left that had plainly let two obama victories get to their heads.
The ridiculousness was dead weight and some of it had to go. Looks like they've decided (perhaps out of resentment towards berners) to evict the "economics itself is evil" attitude (free college for everyone!). This is probably a good stategic choice because that attitude hasn't been paying its rent of keeping white males in their 20s in the party.
n/a HobbesCalvinandLocke 2017-05-21
As much as I can't appreciate how someone could think that because we like Obama we'll like SJWs, I can't understand how someone could be so mad at SJWs that they decide to become Trump supporters.
How dumb are people that vote on social issues? Worst of the worst.
n/a SineadObama 2017-05-21
I'm not really talking about SJWs, or even mainly about social issues. I'm not sure where you got that from? I feel like you really want to talk about another topic (look at these bad people!) than the one I'm talking about.
Purely on policy, Democrats were stretching themselves too thin.
n/a HobbesCalvinandLocke 2017-05-21
I'm saying that what you talked about wasn't about policy at all, it was about random social issues that people should feel bad about basing their votes on.
n/a SineadObama 2017-05-21
"free college for everyone" is a policy. And it alienated mainstream voters who felt the left was unresponsive to their needs as a constituency. The amount of Americans who take on a lot of debt for private school or an out of date school is actually a very small amount of the population.
Again, you're really not reading anything I say and just talking past me. You have this thing you want to argue with me about it and you have no interest in letting my actual stance here get in the way of that. It seems you'd rather paint me as this enemy you have in your head than admit that you got the wrong guy here.
n/a HobbesCalvinandLocke 2017-05-21
I don't think you know what you're talking about. I wasn't being argumentative.
n/a unferth 2017-05-21
Wow shut the fuck up with that shit and call the moron above you a drooling retard. We have rules here
n/a 80BAIT08 2017-05-21
PK REEEd to save us from our sins. Neolibs are the biggest spergs of all.
n/a forlackofabetterword 2017-05-21
If you go through PK's list one by one most of the things on there are either down voted below zero or have less votes than the people they're arguing with. The ones that are really bad are mostly us saying that we place less value on climate change or racism compared to economic issues, which is bad, but mitigated by the fact that it's mostly hypothetical scenarios. Besides, compared to the sort of shit that goes on in /r/conservative, /r/socialism, /r/FULLCOMMUNISM, /r/ourrevolution, /r/latestagecapitalism, /r/libertarian, or of course /r/the_Donald, I don't think we're doing badly, especially considering that we don't have purity tests and don't ban people just for dissenting. I'm not sure why PK gets so riled up against us specifically.
n/a zzzzz94 2017-05-21
Why is this objectively bad? If economics has the ability to double a nation's income/it's peoples over two decades or so, how is that objectively less important than those things?
n/a forlackofabetterword 2017-05-21
I'm not convinced that applying direct utilitarianism here is a great idea. In these offhand hypotheticals, this sort of deal with the devil might justifiable, but in real life, there's almost always a better way. It also just makes us look like we don't care about certain issues and makes us look cold to the outside, which is exactly why it was included in this post.
n/a EvanHarper 2017-05-21
let's talk about the real issue here, which is that you want to buff the most powerful class in the game because pubbies don't know how to play him
n/a wumbo17412 2017-05-21
but enough about anarchism