Just remember, the user base of enoughmuskspam is basically the same community that makes up woke twitter an /r/cth; Part of being safe space socialism is opposing technological development, for some reason.
Part of being safe space socialism is opposing technological development, for some reason.
... while dreaming of the fully automated gay space luxury communism.
The reason is that Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and the like are much more dangerous for the communist project than Koch brothers or other unknown run of the mill billionaires, precisely because it's harder to hate them.
There's a Marxist description of why privately owned capital is evil: a guy inherits a billion dollars, invests it at five times the rate of inflation, and lives like a king without contributing anything to the society while his share of capital also keeps growing. How is that fair?
But if you point at tech nouveau riche who busted their asses and delivered products that actually improved lives of hundreds of millions of people, the system doesn't feel nearly as broken. The focus of the complaints has to shift from "they stole all that wealth from the proletariat" to "it's their duty to help those less fortunate". This really upsets the tankies.
at a certain point it gets tiring for communists to argue with the paragraphs upon paragraphs of weird misconceptions and ridiculous strawmen that people somehow come up with lmao
Um, are you disagreeing with my Marxist description of why privately owned capital is evil? I mean, if anything I'm too kind to Marx, since I don't mention the labor theory of value.
one, marxism doesn't concern itself with normative moral statements so you'll find no explanation in Marx's body of work as to why 'capital is evil'; two, 'private' ownership in the colloquial sense is a purely legal reality: whether state-owned or privately-owned, capital remains fundamentally the same; three, capital remains exploitative regardless as to whether or not it's owned by an organization or people who 'busted their asses'.
But people who busted their ass and made the world a much better place as a result offsets the exploitation in most people's minds which makes it harder for Marxists to appeal to the proletariat to overthrow capitalism. As a result they reserve an extra level of ire for the self made capitalist.
First of all, "marxism doesn't concern itself with normative moral statements" but "capital remains exploitative", heh. But whatever, it's a red herring because Marxists who treat Marxism as purely descriptive and are content with the status quo wouldn't be recognized as Marxists by most of the people who call themselves Marxists.
Though that would make for a hilarious sketch, like a bunch of revolutionaries break into this hedge fund manager's office but he has a well worn Das Kapital (in German) on his table, tells them that he's a staunch Marxist and totally wipes the floor with them in a nerd-out about the theory.
So then they are, like, but dude, why... why are you a hedge fund manager, and he looks at them like an idiots and says that appropriating the surplus created by labor is a w e s o m e.
The second I grant you though I always felt that this "state capitalism" dodge was invented by proto-tankies exclusively as an excuse for the failure of the USSR. Where, by the way, doubting that "The People and the Party are One" would get you sent into a gulag faster than something that happens near damn instantaneously.
Regarding the third I think you missed my point, Gateses and Musks of this world don't have the capital because of the exploits of their previous capital, they actually earned most of it. And I don't know or care about Musk, but Gates certainly gives away much more that he gets from his current capital exploiting the labor.
I mean, a quick thought experiment: if tech billionaires were forbidden from investing their capital (neutering its exploitativeness) would you suddenly become totally OK with them?
The idea that capitalist production is exploitative is not an explicitly moral judgement: it is, like saying that slavery is a system of coercion, a statement of fact. With that being said, Marxism is not devoid of all moral statements: we do concern ourselves, first and foremost, with the idea that human emancipation is an achievable and desirable goal. But the issue of normative morality — in other words, how one should and shouldn't act within the context of capitalist society, whether or not individuals are 'evil' or good — these are not things that Marxism inherently concerns itself with. It's true that discussions can be had about these things, but it hardly has any bearing on the Marxist critique of capitalism.
There have always been, ever since the Bolsheviks ascended to state-power, Marxists who have criticized the USSR as state-capitalist. Capitalist production is demarcated by the generalization of commodity-production: in other words, the main kind of production we see is production-for-exchange — labour and the means-of-production are purchased in order to produce commodities to be sold for a higher value than it cost to make them. The Soviet Union did not, and was not capable of, rid itself of this kind of production. Firms were, in fact, often legally required to turn a profit.
I think that you misunderstand what is meant by 'capital is exploitative'. Let's start with a fact: capital relies on a mass of labourers who rely on their capacity to labour in order to survive. Capital has no choice but to purchase labour in order to multiply its own value, and labour has no choice but to sell itself in order to purchase food, shelter, and other commodities. The necessity of wage-labour makes the entire process, for the worker, one of coercion: he either works or he dies. And the process, for capital, is one of the exploitation of labour's unique power to create value: it hires the labourer for less than the value that the labourer produces, and extracts the rest in order to realize a profit.
The idea that capitalist production is exploitative is not an explicitly moral judgement: it is, like saying that slavery is a system of coercion, a statement of fact. With that being said, Marxism is not devoid of all moral statements: we do concern ourselves, first and foremost, with the idea that human emancipation is an achievable and desirable goal. But the issue of normative morality — in other words, how one should and shouldn't act within the context of capitalist society, whether or not individuals are 'evil' or good — these are not things that Marxism inherently concerns itself with. It's true that discussions can be had about these things, but it hardly has any bearing on the Marxist critique of capitalism.
There have always been, ever since the Bolsheviks ascended to state-power, Marxists who have criticized the USSR as state-capitalist. Capitalist production is demarcated by the generalization of commodity-production: in other words, the main kind of production we see is production-for-exchange — labour and the means-of-production are purchased in order to produce commodities to be sold for a higher value than it cost to make them. The Soviet Union did not, and was not capable of, rid itself of this kind of production. Firms were, in fact, often legally required to turn a profit.
I think that you misunderstand what is meant by 'capital is exploitative'. Let's start with a fact: capital relies on a mass of labourers who rely on their capacity to labour in order to survive. Capital has no choice but to purchase labour in order to multiply its own value, and labour has no choice but to sell itself in order to purchase food, shelter, and other commodities. The necessity of wage-labour makes the entire process, for the worker, one of coercion: he either works or he dies. And the process, for capital, is one of the exploitation of labour's unique power to create value: it hires the labourer for less than the value that the labourer produces, and extracts the rest in order to realize a profit.
Communism is the realization of a world in which value itself has been abolished. Products are no longer exchanged, but freely distributed based on the concrete needs of the community. Money does not exist, and labour becomes free-labour: labour for its own sake, not coerced labour. Anything less than this is something that I'm not okay with.
The necessity of wage-labour makes the entire process, for the worker, one of coercion: he either works or he dies. And the process, for capital, is one of the exploitation of labour's unique power to create value: it hires the labourer for less than the value that the labourer produces, and extracts the rest in order to realize a profit.
Why doesn't the laborer make her own means of production?
Imagine that you are a potter in some primitive society. You make about ten pots per day with your bare hands. I spend some extra effort besides my own trade and craft a pottery wheel. I propose that I rent it to you, so that you'd make 100 pots per day but give me 50 back as rent.
What really is "the value that the labourer produces" in this case, 10 pots or 100, where do extra 90 pots come from, and who deserves to get them?
Communism is the realization of a world in which value itself has been abolished. Products are no longer exchanged, but freely distributed based on the concrete needs of the community. Money does not exist, and labour becomes free-labour: labour for its own sake, not coerced labour. Anything less than this is something that I'm not okay with.
So until we have bulk matter replicators Communism can't be implemented, by definition, right? So we can drop the entire issue as a red herring and talk strictly about Socialism. And, for example, its difference from "state capitalism".
Why doesn't the laborer make her own means of production?
They don't have the requisite money. It's possible for some people to, maybe, purchase equipment to make rudimentary commodities — they'll always be out-competed by larger capitals, and most would never be able to survive comfortably on that income.
Imagine that you are a potter in some primitive society. You make about ten pots per day with your bare hands. I spend some extra effort besides my own trade and craft a pottery wheel. I propose that I rent it to you, so that you'd make 100 pots per day but give me 50 back as rent.
What really is "the value that the labourer produces" in this case, 10 pots or 100, where do extra 90 pots come from, and who deserves to get them?
Capitalism didn't exist in primitive societies. The situation that you're describing consists of two independent producers coming into contact and exchanging their products. But let's evaluate the process here anyway: the amount of commodities that the potter originally creates is ten pots per day. Let's assume, for the sake of simplicity, that this is the socially-average time that it makes to create ten pots — perhaps the pottery wheel is a relatively new invention that has not seen general use. That would mean that the value that has been embodied in these pots is the equivalent of one working-day: the potter could, then, on average, exchange ten pots for any other amount of commodities that take one day on average to produce.
When the potter purchases (or rents) the pottery wheel, he has increased his productivity times ten. Assuming that he's ahead of the curve, and that the rest of society hasn't caught up to this increase in production, the amount of pots that he creates is no longer the equivalent of one working-day, but ten. But it's only a matter-of-time now: the rest of the potting world will eventually have to adopt the pottery wheel, the amount of pots you can create in one day on average will increase tenfold, and at that time the value of one-hundred pots will only be the equivalent of the value of one working-day.
I will stress that this is slightly inaccurate. I am referring only to the amount of new value created. We haven't taken into account: one, the value of the raw resources used to make the pot; two, the value of the pottery wheel, which will, as it degrades, gradually transfer its own value to the value of its products. Technically, then, the value of those one-hundred pots would be the combined values of: one, a small portion of the value of the spinning-wheel, the value of the raw resources required in their production, and the newly-created value of the one-working day that it took to make them.
The question of who deserves to own these pots is largely irrelevant here.
So until we have bulk matter replicators Communism can't be implemented, by definition, right? So we can drop the entire issue as a red herring and talk strictly about Socialism. And, for example, its difference from "state capitalism".
Our productive capacity is enough to provide every person in the world with a reasonably good standard of living. We already, for example, produce enough food to feed everyone on Earth. There are, for example, enough houses to house every homeless person in America. This is not a problem, but the question of scarcity has in any case already been solved by Marx: the lower-stage of communism would involve each labourer receiving a labour-certificate denoting the amount of time that they have worked, which could be exchanged for an amount of products that it took the equivalent time to produce. The higher-stage of communism, operating on the principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need', would only be reached when co-operative wealth is able to flow freely.
Marx never described socialism as a mode-of-production distinct from communism.
Capitalism didn't exist in primitive societies. The situation that you're describing consists of two independent producers coming into contact and exchanging their products.
Nope, that's one of the simplest examples of a capitalist extracting some of the surplus labor as rent. What makes it much more ethically ambiguous than the examples Marxists showed you is that in this case the capitalist has created her capital with her own labor and it's still embodied in means of production, instead of inheriting it as money. Similar to Elon Musk or Bill Gates.
The question of who deserves to own these pots is largely irrelevant here.
No, that's only important question here. The labor theory of value says that the potter owns the entire 100 pots she now produces, except maybe the small amount that she has to repay the wheel-maker once, to compensate her for the labor spent on the pottery wheel.
What's missing is an explanation where the extra 90 pots came from, since she puts in the exact same amount of labor. That's clearly a bunch of extra value!
What's also missing is why the potter is hellbent on laying her hands on the pottery wheel, instead of being content with making 10 pots per day as before. And how she is "coerced" to do a 50/50 split that gives her 40 extra pots per day.
That points to the idea that the extra value comes from the technological or organizational advances, not from the labor that magically becomes 10x more productive entirely coincidentally with the procurement of the pottery wheel.
Look my dude, Karl Marx wrote Das Kapital in the middle of the 19th century, when the Industrial Revolution was just gaining steam (heh), so naturally he assumed that all this social upheaval and suddenly factories everywhere was a one time thing and we should take a long view where as a result of wage enslavement the potter only makes 5 original pots worth of money, and also that we could just expropriate all pottery wheels from their fatcat owners and not wonder who's going to make CNC mills then. The labor theory of value belongs in the trash bin of history.
This is not a problem, but the question of scarcity has in any case already been solved by Marx: the lower-stage of communism would involve each labourer receiving a labour-certificate denoting the amount of time that they have worked, which could be exchanged for an amount of products that it took the equivalent time to produce.
This directly contradicts
Communism is the realization of a world in which value itself has been abolished. Products are no longer exchanged, but freely distributed based on the concrete needs of the community. Money does not exist, and labour becomes free-labour: labour for its own sake, not coerced labour. Anything less than this is something that I'm not okay with.
Also, do I get a labor certificate for jerking off for 8 hours?
Nope, that's one of the simplest examples of a capitalist extracting some of the surplus labor as rent. What makes it much more ethically ambiguous than the examples Marxists showed you is that in this case the capitalist has created her capital with her own labor and it's still embodied in means of production, instead of inheriting it as money. Similar to Elon Musk or Bill Gates.
capitalism isn't a practice, it's a system — the generalization of commodity-production. in no other society was the production of commodities, in other words production-for-exchange, the predominant kind of production.
The labor theory of value says that the potter owns the entire 100 pots she now produces, except maybe the small amount that she has to repay the wheel-maker once, to compensate her for the labor spent on the pottery wheel.
no. the LTV says that the value of commodities is the equivalent of the socially-necessary labour time embodied within them.
That points to the idea that the extra value comes from the technological or organizational advances, not from the labor that magically becomes 10x more productive entirely coincidentally with the procurement of the pottery wheel.
good thing literally no one has every argued that in the history of the universe LMAO.
This directly contradicts
it is true that in the lower-stage of communism labour is still, in a sense, coerced labour. but we are not ideological purists. we are willing to take practical steps towards the establishment of complete communism.
but the system of labour-vouchers is not capitalism. first of all, no commodities are exchanged. the same principle regulates production as the exchange of commodities, insofar as this exchange is between equal values. but labour-vouchers are not money: they can not be accumulated, they are merely a guarantee of access. they are used once and destroyed. second of all, the worker receives the equivalent of the full value of what he produces (minus some deductions, I have an article that explains exactly how this would work).
in the lower-stage of communism, capital does not exist. the state does not exist. money does not exist. and the direct exchange of commodities does not exist. this is only the beginning of the road towards the higher-stage of communism, which is certainly achievable with our current technology.
this is only the beginning of the road towards the higher-stage of communism, which is certainly achievable with our current technology.
Go on and achieve it in one communist commune, you crazy diamond. In one firm, even, in one LLC. Then see your success spread as your example attracts more and more people!
no such thing lmfao. we'll achieve it through the means of an international revolution. and those who oppose us will be subject to the revolutionary terror.
Mmm hmm, but if you can't do it in one separate commune because it always ends up sucking very bad, then you can only recruit from total retards who don't find that concerning, and total retards are notoriously bad at carrying out complex tasks such as international revolutions. Back to the drawing board, sweaty! (lol who am I kidding, drawing board lmao)
u can't do it in one commune because it's actually impossible and essentially a non-sequitur lol. don't worry my dude. when the revolution comes you won't be worthwhile enough to be in harms way.
u can't do it in one commune because it's actually impossible and essentially a non-sequitur lol
How so, is there some flaw in communism that makes it suck for small numbers of people?
From looking around it should be the other way, most companies run on a weird mix of communism and feudalism internally, and none on actual capitalism. And yet it doesn't scale, apparently.
don't worry my dude. when the revolution comes you won't be worthwhile enough to be in harms way.
Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?
No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.
Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.
It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.
It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.
The thing you quote answers a very different but superficially very similar question, to the point of it being demagoguery on your or possibly Engel's part.
The question it answers is: is it possible that only one country converts to Communism while others remain Capitalist? It says that no, that one spark will inevitably start the worldwide revolution, the fire rises!
The question I'm asking is, is it possible to strike that spark in one separate country, or state, or county, or commune, and if so, why don't you?
Nothing in the quote answers that.
In fact there's an interesting consequence if you want to take it at the face value: it seems to say that if you start the fire in one separate country (such as Russia) but it doesn't take off everywhere else shortly after (much less for the whole century afterwards), then you started it prematurely.
And in fact the best way to avoid a fuck up like that is to not to attempt to start a Communist Revolution in the first place. When the world is ready, with bussy bots everywhere, it's going to convert to Communism, inevitably, so you can relax and smoke weed instead of trying to convince people over the internet.
Because it's either pointless (if the world is ready, it's going to go lit by itself) or premature and harmful (if the world is not ready you're going to kill another score of millions of people).
I think rightly you can consider billionaires narcissist work-a-holics or people who were in the right place at the right time, but the way online socialists take it is to resentment an pathetic assassination of things like space exploration.
I have literally seen the r/cth users arguing that humanity should never go to space until poverty is eliminated.
Despite asteroid mining being the gateway to eliminating our dependence on plastics, lowing the cost of consumer goods/building materials, an reducing ecological damage by reducing the need for mining.
I think the central complaint, at least for me, is that you buy the idea that his PR company sold you.
Elon is a work-a-holic who sleeps on his factory floor in Freemont...
Yet he owns a dozen mansions in Bel Air and has time to be starfucking Grimes and tweeting shit all day...
For me, the crux of the anti-Musk jerk is only the frustration of watching so many people believe such obvious lies--and not even for a political purpose or personal gain--just because they want to believe the dude's a real life Tony Stark.
I don't know what Musk's actual life is like; my comment doesn't call him, but billionaires work-a-holics, an you claiming to know builds my suspicion that you're just a safe space socialist who ruins left wing politics for the working class.
I mean, socialism has a lot of pretty broad definitions for a lot of different people, if you think its bad for workers to be shareholders in their employer, then you're gay.
If you think capitalism doesn't need regulations/social safety net, you guessed it, gay.
Not technological development, but solving issues through capitalism. If you look at billionaires and rich companies you will found lot of oil rich asshole republicans, data thieves, companies that will buy other companies to load it with debt and blame the workers, companies that will start fucking wars over resources, so why Elon Musk? Because he is trying to solve world problems through capitalism (also getting fucking rich but he could have tackled lot easier industries).
Idk if it's internalized or externalized but they really feel this way. If Tesla succeeds and starts pumping out electric cars and solar by millions it would avert damages from climate change, SpaceX's worldwide internet and cheap travel to space would finally progress human civilization in meaningful way. Which would go against the thesis that capitalism ruins everything and doesn't strive towards anything.
Elon as a person is kind of an asshole and Tesla has lot of problems but not to get this much disproportionate hate.
Where does it say that they’d rather let the kids drown? Not that I disagree that they’re dumdums, but I was hoping for some true ‘shill level derangedness.
All those "EnoughXSpam" subreddits are terrible and completely lack the self awareness that their mere existence disproves their own name. You idiots only add to the spam. Stop. God. Who even subscribes to those shitholes?
The name is really stupid and has nothing to do with the actual point of the subs, but they're basically ways to criticize or make fun of something that would normally get you downvoted to hell by the reddit hivemind
To be fair, ELS and ETS were both created at the height of the political circlejerks they're named after. There was a time when Ron Paul was to Reddit what Bernie is today, and a time when hating on TD was not so common.
It was around when TD stopped being a joke people started linking shit showing what a nutcase Trump really was and TD started getting really hostile to the rest of reddit calling them losers etc because of the anti-trump posts triggering the shit out of them. Then segregation happened and fixed everything.
Dude, I just looked through the profile of a random guy I was talking to on that sub, and this dude was legit posting 3-5 posts and 10-20 comments per day attacking anything Musk related. Dude legit spends hours every single day looking for and posting stuff related to Musk. It's pathetic.
Reddit is weird with people finding something they feel contrarian about and basing their entire existence on rage/serious posting about how much they hate X or "the truth about X" and feel religiously bound to spreading it.
Take for example the whole "I hate the sex offenders registry, people get on it for pissing all the time".
Redditors are gullible enough to believe that when a sex offender who moves into the neighborhood has to inform neighbors by knocking that they will come out and admit "I was masturbating openly in front of a 9 year old and did so on multiple occasions" or that they will admit "I sexually assaulted my 11 year old cousin"
Nope, they all say "well I was out with my g-g-g-g-irlfriend then I went to piss in an alley and the police ran up to me and put me on the sex offenders registry"
And you have redditors really contrarian rageposting about this and showing their gullability and contrarianism everywhere. Likewise with Martin Shkreli there's people deifying him and saying "Well actually he was a saviour and gave away medicine for free and he's the real good guy". They are dumb enough to believe everything and all the hand-waving that came out of his mouth to hand-waves the scummy shit he did.
Reddit is weird with people finding something they feel contrarian about and basing their entire existence on rage/serious posting about how much they hate X or "the truth about X" and feel religiously bound to spreading it.
I had this same realization with the anti-Jordan Peterson folks. Look at these submission histories:
The first one is a woman in her 50's. The second is a male in his 30's. The last one is perhaps the funniest and saddest, the guy's entire existence revolves around talking about someone he despises. Peterson has occupied more time in his mind than perhaps his closest relatives.
These people remind me of the anti-gay preachers who can't stop talking about how bad being gay is only to find out they're gay themselves.
I'm not really gay. I don't see a problem with homosexuality. I'm completely comfortable with my "feminine side" and you could probably call me bi, but I generally prefer women.
LOL! Are you retarded? How am I "recruiting for the Peterson cult"? Do you think I give a flying fuck if some 30 year old bisexual virgin likes JP or not? HAHAHA the amount of self-awareness you lack is killing me.
Now begone, go watch another video on Peterson or read his book again LOL
This is a problem. You're vilifying me because I read Peterson's book. Would I really be in the right if I were upset about something another person was doing if I did not make an attempt to educate myself regarding what that person is doing?
Do you not see the problem with kneejerk responses to people? It wouldn't be right for me to talk about how someone was preaching alt-right bullshit if I could not specifically identify times that person said those things. If I did not take a moment to read his book, I would be completely ignorant.
This is sad. What it means is that when something upsets you, rather than take the time to learn about the thing, you simply attack it and assume that you've never been wrong in your life. Reading a 400 page book takes about 2 days when the book is as light and rambling as Peterson's 12 rules. I legitimately read a bootleg copy of the book between about 2 am on a Saturday morning and 12 noon that same morning. I read the entire thing.
To put that in perspective, that's about as much time as a person would spend watching a season of a show they did not like much on netflix. Except, the producer of the show was ostensibly teaching people life lessons in the show, and the show was a documentary filled with "educational" value.
It's embarrassing that you view reading a book by someone you don't like or don't agree with as something deserving of ridicule. You're proclaiming you're own ignorance and your reluctance to educate yourself.
Set aside Peterson for a moment as he's irrelevant to this discussion, the point is you're a fucking loser. Absolutely, positively, unarguably, quintessentially, a total and utter complete fucking loser. And not just your typical reddit loser, but 30 years old to boot!
Don't you get it? Do you not understand what I'm saying? I don't give a flying fuck if you like JP or not, some people hate him, many love him, but that's not the point. The point is you've narrowed down your life and JP is the center of it, if you replaced JP with something you actually did like and could improve your life you may be less of a fucking failure in life.
This is another problem. You don't know who I am. Legitimately, you have no idea. You're attacking people who are bisexual and homosexual as losers out of hand. You're just declaring people who have different sexual preferences that harm no one are losers.
You further don't know anything about my personal life. You don't. You can't call me a loser because I spend a lot of time on reddit. All that means is that I spend a lot of time on reddit. You don't know the circumstances under which I spend that time. You do not know what I do for work, where I've been educated, my hobbies, or anything similar.
Why are you still talking about me? Does it sound like the behavior of someone not a loser to regularly post about another person they have never met and who is of no real consequence to anyone on multiple forums on the internet?
I have never talked about u/iprez anywhere. I don't talk about you. I don't care about you. The only time I've mentioned you was when you started posting about me on the jordan peterson subreddit. At that time, I did not even mention you by name because: 1) It's kind of rude and trollish. 2) I don't care about you.
I'm talking to you now because I'm trying to point out that anything I do on reddit in relation to discussing the culture around Jordan Peterson is significantly less sad that the grudge you're holding against me. I'm a 31 year old tech worker. I'm not sure what your fascination with me is. It's kind of bizarre.
I'm not sure if you're autistic or have some cognitive disability because your inability to understand what I'm saying is actually bizarre, a little worrying. I mean I don't discriminate against those with mental illnesses but you really think I'm calling you a loser because you're....gay? The fact that you take it up the poop chute is such a red herring it's blinding.
Also, no one is obsessed with you...I think you're not quite understanding the difference between what I'm doing and what you're doing. Back in high school I worked at Walmart and I once saw this homeless guy take a piss on the side of the building, I tell that story to this day not because I have a fascination with urine but because it's equal parts funny and sad.
You on the other hand are obsessed with a 56 year old man so much that despite the enormous amount of contempt you have for him you choose to indulge in his material. We've been through this so I'm really trying hard here to dumb it down so you can possibly understand what it appears like...it's like, suppose there was a blogger I couldn't stand and whom I disagreed with on everything, imagine if my life revolved around reading their material and talking about them with strangers about how much I hated them. Do you get it now?
"I think spending so much time on reddit has made me like actual full on chick-lit more than I ever have because I feel like I'm in an edgy 15 year old nephew's basement bedroom playing magic cards or risk while waiting for my family to finish cooking dinner or something when I'm on reddit. Need something to balance that out." - 31 year old man
holy shit wow. To be honest when someone say's" I'm 60 and I use reddit" it always confuses me as I just can't imagine if they get sucked into the behaviours mentioned but clearly as you have shown... It happens.
Because it's a continuation of a trend that has been going on since the Obama years. The president doesn't really have a lot of control over the economy (unless they do something stupid like tank the economy with trade tariffs).
/r/enoughmuskspam jerks too hard and admits that they'd rather have Thai kids drown than give Musk the satisfaction of helping with their rescue.reddit.com/r/Enou...Posted byu/Ultrashitposter4 hours ago
hes an atheist
hes a white man
hes american
he said bad things about the state of journalism
he believes space and high technology will save us
Does anyone need any other reasons to hate this fascist pig alt-right problematic trump Zionist nazi?
Boring hasn't done anything. They don't have any expertise whatsoever in safely excavating an area that has helpless people inside. The participation of a rocket company is even less helpful in this situation.
Yes. /u/Zue3 has even had the gall to call us cowards while he sits in his echo chamber. I’ve branded him on RES and won’t let a single comment of his slide from now on.
He’s a coward that can’t contribute to society, much less the rescue of these kids. I hope his mommy’s basement is nice and warm.
Lol he doesn’t even know he’s shadowbanned from AgainstHateSubreddits and that none of his shitty comments show up lmao
And here you are getting upset over reddit posts you had nothing to do with. What you scared your fav thai ladyboy is trapped in those mines or something?
I'm mocking a retard pham. I have no skin in this game either way. Other than being enough of a faggot to think that children suffocating to death in a thai cave is a bad thing.
Ok I just checked out that sub. It appears to be a den of snakes, trolls, and alt left SJWs. I saw several clear violations of Reddit law. Drama girls are smarter than the average cookies, they had to know we'd be on to them. Sad.
Forget being the Ford of space rockets and electric cars, Musk's true talent is managing to be the focus point of all the commie LARPers's absolute insanity.
Somehow, for some reason, these Western commies all own Apple devices, originally envisioned by a ruthless bastard and basically a robber baron of the modern age, now deceased, Steve Handjobs.
Yet tankies never hated him. Ever. What the fuck gives?
What? Lots of people hated Jobs, so much so that Reddit has a big ackshually moment whenever his name is mentioned. I always assumed some of them were Tankies.
He was a huuggggeee asshole. He spent his life taking ideas that were 90% complete, sticking his name on them, then taking all the money and credit. Then there are the numerous anecdotes about what a dick he was from people who worked for him - he would humiliate people if they couldn't meet his expectations.
It's a shame he isn't still around, because he may be have been the only asshole billionaire to have ever been more narcissistic than Trump is, and an argument between them would have been a true unstoppable force / immovable object situation.
The community is a lot more diverse than 'tankies'. In it's inception the opposite to what you're suggesting was actually true - they were a minority. Of course now they represent a solid chunk, but solid chunk does not a majority make.
Imagine being so retarded that you think Engineers don't have any multidisciplinary training and that Aerospace Engineers only understand how to make rockets and airplanes fly.
This level of pure autism concentrate is astounding.
Why are people so pissed off about this? Either the plan works and a dozen human lives are saved, or it doesn't and we all get to pile on Rocket Daddy for using dead kids to self promote. IT'S WIN-WIN.
171 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-07-07
Sarcasm and flippant behavior represent contempt, which is the opposite of intellectual integrity. You seem like a real fool of a human.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-07-07
How much revenue does Space Daddy bring in with all that free extra living space?
1 Ultrashitposter 2018-07-07
His real estate empire is the only profitable company he has.
1 TheLordHighExecu 2018-07-07
The only thing he's been able to produce on a mass scale
1 Neil_Tzedakah 2018-07-07
Idk he does a pretty good job of producing tard rage on a mass scale.
1 imaginarycreatures 2018-07-07
He does that for free, tho.
1 AlreadyPorchNaked 2018-07-07
Get ready for more shit, Musk just tweeted that he's building a kid-sized submarine to rescue the kids.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1015657378140704768
1 Redditisdyingsoon 2018-07-07
Renting out tents is very lucrative dontcha know
1 darth_stroyer 2018-07-07
Letting kids die to own the Muskrats
1 AlreadyPorchNaked 2018-07-07
/u/Zue3 show me on the doll where Elon touched you
1 riseofazrael 2018-07-07
Comes off like a jealous and disgruntled ex-girlfriend lmao 😂
1 Derpus_Contagious 2018-07-07
/u/Zue3 Why do you hate Thai children so much?
1 Automaticus 2018-07-07
Just remember, the user base of enoughmuskspam is basically the same community that makes up woke twitter an /r/cth; Part of being safe space socialism is opposing technological development, for some reason.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-07-07
... while dreaming of the fully automated gay space luxury communism.
The reason is that Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and the like are much more dangerous for the communist project than Koch brothers or other unknown run of the mill billionaires, precisely because it's harder to hate them.
There's a Marxist description of why privately owned capital is evil: a guy inherits a billion dollars, invests it at five times the rate of inflation, and lives like a king without contributing anything to the society while his share of capital also keeps growing. How is that fair?
But if you point at tech nouveau riche who busted their asses and delivered products that actually improved lives of hundreds of millions of people, the system doesn't feel nearly as broken. The focus of the complaints has to shift from "they stole all that wealth from the proletariat" to "it's their duty to help those less fortunate". This really upsets the tankies.
1 the_marx 2018-07-07
at a certain point it gets tiring for communists to argue with the paragraphs upon paragraphs of weird misconceptions and ridiculous strawmen that people somehow come up with lmao
1 zergling_Lester 2018-07-07
Um, are you disagreeing with my Marxist description of why privately owned capital is evil? I mean, if anything I'm too kind to Marx, since I don't mention the labor theory of value.
1 the_marx 2018-07-07
one, marxism doesn't concern itself with normative moral statements so you'll find no explanation in Marx's body of work as to why 'capital is evil'; two, 'private' ownership in the colloquial sense is a purely legal reality: whether state-owned or privately-owned, capital remains fundamentally the same; three, capital remains exploitative regardless as to whether or not it's owned by an organization or people who 'busted their asses'.
1 ffbtaw 2018-07-07
But people who busted their ass and made the world a much better place as a result offsets the exploitation in most people's minds which makes it harder for Marxists to appeal to the proletariat to overthrow capitalism. As a result they reserve an extra level of ire for the self made capitalist.
1 the_marx 2018-07-07
oh yeah definitely sure but have you considered this: poop
1 shut_up_frank 2018-07-07
Holy fuck I'm dying XD
1 imissyouseattle 2018-07-07
I never thought of it that way...
1 Jeffy29 2018-07-07
You finally made a coherent point.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-07-07
First of all, "marxism doesn't concern itself with normative moral statements" but "capital remains exploitative", heh. But whatever, it's a red herring because Marxists who treat Marxism as purely descriptive and are content with the status quo wouldn't be recognized as Marxists by most of the people who call themselves Marxists.
Though that would make for a hilarious sketch, like a bunch of revolutionaries break into this hedge fund manager's office but he has a well worn Das Kapital (in German) on his table, tells them that he's a staunch Marxist and totally wipes the floor with them in a nerd-out about the theory.
So then they are, like, but dude, why... why are you a hedge fund manager, and he looks at them like an idiots and says that appropriating the surplus created by labor is a w e s o m e.
The second I grant you though I always felt that this "state capitalism" dodge was invented by proto-tankies exclusively as an excuse for the failure of the USSR. Where, by the way, doubting that "The People and the Party are One" would get you sent into a gulag faster than something that happens near damn instantaneously.
Regarding the third I think you missed my point, Gateses and Musks of this world don't have the capital because of the exploits of their previous capital, they actually earned most of it. And I don't know or care about Musk, but Gates certainly gives away much more that he gets from his current capital exploiting the labor.
I mean, a quick thought experiment: if tech billionaires were forbidden from investing their capital (neutering its exploitativeness) would you suddenly become totally OK with them?
1 the_marx 2018-07-07
The idea that capitalist production is exploitative is not an explicitly moral judgement: it is, like saying that slavery is a system of coercion, a statement of fact. With that being said, Marxism is not devoid of all moral statements: we do concern ourselves, first and foremost, with the idea that human emancipation is an achievable and desirable goal. But the issue of normative morality — in other words, how one should and shouldn't act within the context of capitalist society, whether or not individuals are 'evil' or good — these are not things that Marxism inherently concerns itself with. It's true that discussions can be had about these things, but it hardly has any bearing on the Marxist critique of capitalism.
There have always been, ever since the Bolsheviks ascended to state-power, Marxists who have criticized the USSR as state-capitalist. Capitalist production is demarcated by the generalization of commodity-production: in other words, the main kind of production we see is production-for-exchange — labour and the means-of-production are purchased in order to produce commodities to be sold for a higher value than it cost to make them. The Soviet Union did not, and was not capable of, rid itself of this kind of production. Firms were, in fact, often legally required to turn a profit.
I think that you misunderstand what is meant by 'capital is exploitative'. Let's start with a fact: capital relies on a mass of labourers who rely on their capacity to labour in order to survive. Capital has no choice but to purchase labour in order to multiply its own value, and labour has no choice but to sell itself in order to purchase food, shelter, and other commodities. The necessity of wage-labour makes the entire process, for the worker, one of coercion: he either works or he dies. And the process, for capital, is one of the exploitation of labour's unique power to create value: it hires the labourer for less than the value that the labourer produces, and extracts the rest in order to realize a profit.
1 the_marx 2018-07-07
The idea that capitalist production is exploitative is not an explicitly moral judgement: it is, like saying that slavery is a system of coercion, a statement of fact. With that being said, Marxism is not devoid of all moral statements: we do concern ourselves, first and foremost, with the idea that human emancipation is an achievable and desirable goal. But the issue of normative morality — in other words, how one should and shouldn't act within the context of capitalist society, whether or not individuals are 'evil' or good — these are not things that Marxism inherently concerns itself with. It's true that discussions can be had about these things, but it hardly has any bearing on the Marxist critique of capitalism.
There have always been, ever since the Bolsheviks ascended to state-power, Marxists who have criticized the USSR as state-capitalist. Capitalist production is demarcated by the generalization of commodity-production: in other words, the main kind of production we see is production-for-exchange — labour and the means-of-production are purchased in order to produce commodities to be sold for a higher value than it cost to make them. The Soviet Union did not, and was not capable of, rid itself of this kind of production. Firms were, in fact, often legally required to turn a profit.
I think that you misunderstand what is meant by 'capital is exploitative'. Let's start with a fact: capital relies on a mass of labourers who rely on their capacity to labour in order to survive. Capital has no choice but to purchase labour in order to multiply its own value, and labour has no choice but to sell itself in order to purchase food, shelter, and other commodities. The necessity of wage-labour makes the entire process, for the worker, one of coercion: he either works or he dies. And the process, for capital, is one of the exploitation of labour's unique power to create value: it hires the labourer for less than the value that the labourer produces, and extracts the rest in order to realize a profit.
Communism is the realization of a world in which value itself has been abolished. Products are no longer exchanged, but freely distributed based on the concrete needs of the community. Money does not exist, and labour becomes free-labour: labour for its own sake, not coerced labour. Anything less than this is something that I'm not okay with.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-07-07
Why doesn't the laborer make her own means of production?
Imagine that you are a potter in some primitive society. You make about ten pots per day with your bare hands. I spend some extra effort besides my own trade and craft a pottery wheel. I propose that I rent it to you, so that you'd make 100 pots per day but give me 50 back as rent.
What really is "the value that the labourer produces" in this case, 10 pots or 100, where do extra 90 pots come from, and who deserves to get them?
So until we have bulk matter replicators Communism can't be implemented, by definition, right? So we can drop the entire issue as a red herring and talk strictly about Socialism. And, for example, its difference from "state capitalism".
1 the_marx 2018-07-07
They don't have the requisite money. It's possible for some people to, maybe, purchase equipment to make rudimentary commodities — they'll always be out-competed by larger capitals, and most would never be able to survive comfortably on that income.
Capitalism didn't exist in primitive societies. The situation that you're describing consists of two independent producers coming into contact and exchanging their products. But let's evaluate the process here anyway: the amount of commodities that the potter originally creates is ten pots per day. Let's assume, for the sake of simplicity, that this is the socially-average time that it makes to create ten pots — perhaps the pottery wheel is a relatively new invention that has not seen general use. That would mean that the value that has been embodied in these pots is the equivalent of one working-day: the potter could, then, on average, exchange ten pots for any other amount of commodities that take one day on average to produce.
When the potter purchases (or rents) the pottery wheel, he has increased his productivity times ten. Assuming that he's ahead of the curve, and that the rest of society hasn't caught up to this increase in production, the amount of pots that he creates is no longer the equivalent of one working-day, but ten. But it's only a matter-of-time now: the rest of the potting world will eventually have to adopt the pottery wheel, the amount of pots you can create in one day on average will increase tenfold, and at that time the value of one-hundred pots will only be the equivalent of the value of one working-day.
I will stress that this is slightly inaccurate. I am referring only to the amount of new value created. We haven't taken into account: one, the value of the raw resources used to make the pot; two, the value of the pottery wheel, which will, as it degrades, gradually transfer its own value to the value of its products. Technically, then, the value of those one-hundred pots would be the combined values of: one, a small portion of the value of the spinning-wheel, the value of the raw resources required in their production, and the newly-created value of the one-working day that it took to make them.
The question of who deserves to own these pots is largely irrelevant here.
Our productive capacity is enough to provide every person in the world with a reasonably good standard of living. We already, for example, produce enough food to feed everyone on Earth. There are, for example, enough houses to house every homeless person in America. This is not a problem, but the question of scarcity has in any case already been solved by Marx: the lower-stage of communism would involve each labourer receiving a labour-certificate denoting the amount of time that they have worked, which could be exchanged for an amount of products that it took the equivalent time to produce. The higher-stage of communism, operating on the principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need', would only be reached when co-operative wealth is able to flow freely.
Marx never described socialism as a mode-of-production distinct from communism.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-07-07
Nope, that's one of the simplest examples of a capitalist extracting some of the surplus labor as rent. What makes it much more ethically ambiguous than the examples Marxists showed you is that in this case the capitalist has created her capital with her own labor and it's still embodied in means of production, instead of inheriting it as money. Similar to Elon Musk or Bill Gates.
No, that's only important question here. The labor theory of value says that the potter owns the entire 100 pots she now produces, except maybe the small amount that she has to repay the wheel-maker once, to compensate her for the labor spent on the pottery wheel.
What's missing is an explanation where the extra 90 pots came from, since she puts in the exact same amount of labor. That's clearly a bunch of extra value!
What's also missing is why the potter is hellbent on laying her hands on the pottery wheel, instead of being content with making 10 pots per day as before. And how she is "coerced" to do a 50/50 split that gives her 40 extra pots per day.
That points to the idea that the extra value comes from the technological or organizational advances, not from the labor that magically becomes 10x more productive entirely coincidentally with the procurement of the pottery wheel.
Look my dude, Karl Marx wrote Das Kapital in the middle of the 19th century, when the Industrial Revolution was just gaining steam (heh), so naturally he assumed that all this social upheaval and suddenly factories everywhere was a one time thing and we should take a long view where as a result of wage enslavement the potter only makes 5 original pots worth of money, and also that we could just expropriate all pottery wheels from their fatcat owners and not wonder who's going to make CNC mills then. The labor theory of value belongs in the trash bin of history.
This directly contradicts
Also, do I get a labor certificate for jerking off for 8 hours?
1 the_marx 2018-07-07
capitalism isn't a practice, it's a system — the generalization of commodity-production. in no other society was the production of commodities, in other words production-for-exchange, the predominant kind of production.
no. the LTV says that the value of commodities is the equivalent of the socially-necessary labour time embodied within them.
good thing literally no one has every argued that in the history of the universe LMAO.
it is true that in the lower-stage of communism labour is still, in a sense, coerced labour. but we are not ideological purists. we are willing to take practical steps towards the establishment of complete communism.
but the system of labour-vouchers is not capitalism. first of all, no commodities are exchanged. the same principle regulates production as the exchange of commodities, insofar as this exchange is between equal values. but labour-vouchers are not money: they can not be accumulated, they are merely a guarantee of access. they are used once and destroyed. second of all, the worker receives the equivalent of the full value of what he produces (minus some deductions, I have an article that explains exactly how this would work).
in the lower-stage of communism, capital does not exist. the state does not exist. money does not exist. and the direct exchange of commodities does not exist. this is only the beginning of the road towards the higher-stage of communism, which is certainly achievable with our current technology.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-07-07
Go on and achieve it in one communist commune, you crazy diamond. In one firm, even, in one LLC. Then see your success spread as your example attracts more and more people!
1 the_marx 2018-07-07
no such thing lmfao. we'll achieve it through the means of an international revolution. and those who oppose us will be subject to the revolutionary terror.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-07-07
Mmm hmm, but if you can't do it in one separate commune because it always ends up sucking very bad, then you can only recruit from total retards who don't find that concerning, and total retards are notoriously bad at carrying out complex tasks such as international revolutions. Back to the drawing board, sweaty! (lol who am I kidding, drawing board lmao)
1 the_marx 2018-07-07
u can't do it in one commune because it's actually impossible and essentially a non-sequitur lol. don't worry my dude. when the revolution comes you won't be worthwhile enough to be in harms way.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-07-07
How so, is there some flaw in communism that makes it suck for small numbers of people?
From looking around it should be the other way, most companies run on a weird mix of communism and feudalism internally, and none on actual capitalism. And yet it doesn't scale, apparently.
Post bussy, lmao
1 the_marx 2018-07-07
Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?
No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.
Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.
It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.
It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.
1 ParagonRenegade 2018-07-07
I really enjoyed this talk, however one-sided it was. I understand your/the marxist perspective much better now. Thanks for taking the time!
1 zergling_Lester 2018-07-07
The thing you quote answers a very different but superficially very similar question, to the point of it being demagoguery on your or possibly Engel's part.
The question it answers is: is it possible that only one country converts to Communism while others remain Capitalist? It says that no, that one spark will inevitably start the worldwide revolution, the fire rises!
The question I'm asking is, is it possible to strike that spark in one separate country, or state, or county, or commune, and if so, why don't you?
Nothing in the quote answers that.
In fact there's an interesting consequence if you want to take it at the face value: it seems to say that if you start the fire in one separate country (such as Russia) but it doesn't take off everywhere else shortly after (much less for the whole century afterwards), then you started it prematurely.
And in fact the best way to avoid a fuck up like that is to not to attempt to start a Communist Revolution in the first place. When the world is ready, with bussy bots everywhere, it's going to convert to Communism, inevitably, so you can relax and smoke weed instead of trying to convince people over the internet.
Because it's either pointless (if the world is ready, it's going to go lit by itself) or premature and harmful (if the world is not ready you're going to kill another score of millions of people).
1 cat--facts 2018-07-07
Did you know? Unlike other cats, lions have a tuft of hair at the end of their tails.
u/zergling_Lester, you subscribed here. To unsubscribe from cat--facts reply, "!cancel".
Not subscribed? Reply "!meow" to start your subscription!
1 UnmortalBeing 2018-07-07
!meow
1 -Mopsus- 2018-07-07
I think they oppose worshiping capitalists - not technological development
1 Automaticus 2018-07-07
It goes beyond opposing worship.
I think rightly you can consider billionaires narcissist work-a-holics or people who were in the right place at the right time, but the way online socialists take it is to resentment an pathetic assassination of things like space exploration.
I have literally seen the r/cth users arguing that humanity should never go to space until poverty is eliminated.
Despite asteroid mining being the gateway to eliminating our dependence on plastics, lowing the cost of consumer goods/building materials, an reducing ecological damage by reducing the need for mining.
Online socialists are retards.
1 aiyooooo 2018-07-07
asteroid mining is dumb. the money is in space slaving. work will be obsolete when we have space niggers
1 MLK-Junior 2018-07-07
Only in the darkness can you see the stars.
1 aiyooooo 2018-07-07
sorry nigga
1 r4ndpaulsbrilloballs 2018-07-07
I think the central complaint, at least for me, is that you buy the idea that his PR company sold you.
Elon is a work-a-holic who sleeps on his factory floor in Freemont...
Yet he owns a dozen mansions in Bel Air and has time to be starfucking Grimes and tweeting shit all day...
For me, the crux of the anti-Musk jerk is only the frustration of watching so many people believe such obvious lies--and not even for a political purpose or personal gain--just because they want to believe the dude's a real life Tony Stark.
1 Automaticus 2018-07-07
I don't know what Musk's actual life is like; my comment doesn't call him, but billionaires work-a-holics, an you claiming to know builds my suspicion that you're just a safe space socialist who ruins left wing politics for the working class.
1 r4ndpaulsbrilloballs 2018-07-07
If you think hard work and long hours is the path to earning billions, I've got a bridge to sell you.
1 Automaticus 2018-07-07
As I said before: *people who were in the right place at the right *
1 r4ndpaulsbrilloballs 2018-07-07
I think you're a rube.
1 J19XV25I70 2018-07-07
That's because socialism is an antiquated ideology that fetishizes factory workers and 19th century industrialism.
1 Automaticus 2018-07-07
I mean, socialism has a lot of pretty broad definitions for a lot of different people, if you think its bad for workers to be shareholders in their employer, then you're gay.
If you think capitalism doesn't need regulations/social safety net, you guessed it, gay.
Online socialism however, very gay.
1 Jeffy29 2018-07-07
Not technological development, but solving issues through capitalism. If you look at billionaires and rich companies you will found lot of oil rich asshole republicans, data thieves, companies that will buy other companies to load it with debt and blame the workers, companies that will start fucking wars over resources, so why Elon Musk? Because he is trying to solve world problems through capitalism (also getting fucking rich but he could have tackled lot easier industries).
Idk if it's internalized or externalized but they really feel this way. If Tesla succeeds and starts pumping out electric cars and solar by millions it would avert damages from climate change, SpaceX's worldwide internet and cheap travel to space would finally progress human civilization in meaningful way. Which would go against the thesis that capitalism ruins everything and doesn't strive towards anything.
Elon as a person is kind of an asshole and Tesla has lot of problems but not to get this much disproportionate hate.
1 imissyouseattle 2018-07-07
Muskrats are so cute
1 Re_LE_Vant_UN 2018-07-07
Well, we should definitely let them die, just not for this reason.
1 cimarafa 2018-07-07
Where does it say that they’d rather let the kids drown? Not that I disagree that they’re dumdums, but I was hoping for some true ‘shill level derangedness.
1 Ultrashitposter 2018-07-07
Nowhere, i just made an exaggerated title.
1 32624647 2018-07-07
Ah, true r/Drama style
1 mcslibbin 2018-07-07
He is a pro
1 VicisSubsisto 2018-07-07
https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/comments/8wjpv0/rnews_already_creaming_themselves_over_thai_cave/e1x8i4y/
1 Bronafide 2018-07-07
"This sub exists to get away from the Musk circlejerk" /u/BuffaloSabresFan
Bro if you really wanted to get away form Elon you wouldnt create a subreddit to spank your tiny dicks about how bad he is.
1 Ennui2778 2018-07-07
/u/BuffaloSabresFan - do you think Sobotka or Thompson has the best boipuccy?
1 Stenwalden 2018-07-07
"We are tired of seeing too many posts about X therefore we are going to create a new sub to talk about and create even more posts about X"
I really have no words...
1 WtfThisIsntWii 2018-07-07
TrumpSpam, BernieSpam, etc posters are beyond redemption.
1 MidnightRider3000 2018-07-07
What don't I have a spam account name after me!?!
I'm very vain! Talk about me damn it! I need the attention..... Good or bad!
1 aiyooooo 2018-07-07
Sanders shit was actually spammed though.
1 dogDroolsCatsRules 2018-07-07
Anti subs are always worse than whatever is the original things.
1 xXsnip_ur_ballsXx 2018-07-07
/r/antifa
1 dogDroolsCatsRules 2018-07-07
Another proof.
1 MyRightToArmBears 2018-07-07
Saying Antifa are worse than fascists is just wrong. They're both not centrists and are therefore equally terrible.
1 dogDroolsCatsRules 2018-07-07
That sub is anti antifa, dood
1 mcbiscuitt 2018-07-07
It's just like r/mgtow. "Men going their own way" but 90% of their posts are about women.
1 RealJackAnchor 2018-07-07
All those "EnoughXSpam" subreddits are terrible and completely lack the self awareness that their mere existence disproves their own name. You idiots only add to the spam. Stop. God. Who even subscribes to those shitholes?
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-07-07
∞ dimensional scrabble
1 -Mopsus- 2018-07-07
The name is really stupid and has nothing to do with the actual point of the subs, but they're basically ways to criticize or make fun of something that would normally get you downvoted to hell by the reddit hivemind
The ones like /r/EnoughTrumpSpam and /r/EnoughLibertarianSpam make no sense though because you can easily talk shit on Trump and libertarians on reddit lol
1 GIANT_BLEEDING_ANUS 2018-07-07
To be fair, ELS and ETS were both created at the height of the political circlejerks they're named after. There was a time when Ron Paul was to Reddit what Bernie is today, and a time when hating on TD was not so common.
1 -Mopsus- 2018-07-07
Yeah, and I guess there was a lot of "LET'S GET THIS TO /r/ALL!!!!!" spam from T_D
1 allendrio 2018-07-07
It was around when TD stopped being a joke people started linking shit showing what a nutcase Trump really was and TD started getting really hostile to the rest of reddit calling them losers etc because of the anti-trump posts triggering the shit out of them. Then segregation happened and fixed everything.
1 jaja10 2018-07-07
Just like real life!
1 Fizrock 2018-07-07
Dude, I just looked through the profile of a random guy I was talking to on that sub, and this dude was legit posting 3-5 posts and 10-20 comments per day attacking anything Musk related. Dude legit spends hours every single day looking for and posting stuff related to Musk. It's pathetic.
1 quityourbullshit777 2018-07-07
Reddit is weird with people finding something they feel contrarian about and basing their entire existence on rage/serious posting about how much they hate X or "the truth about X" and feel religiously bound to spreading it.
Take for example the whole "I hate the sex offenders registry, people get on it for pissing all the time".
Redditors are gullible enough to believe that when a sex offender who moves into the neighborhood has to inform neighbors by knocking that they will come out and admit "I was masturbating openly in front of a 9 year old and did so on multiple occasions" or that they will admit "I sexually assaulted my 11 year old cousin"
Nope, they all say "well I was out with my g-g-g-g-irlfriend then I went to piss in an alley and the police ran up to me and put me on the sex offenders registry"
And you have redditors really contrarian rageposting about this and showing their gullability and contrarianism everywhere. Likewise with Martin Shkreli there's people deifying him and saying "Well actually he was a saviour and gave away medicine for free and he's the real good guy". They are dumb enough to believe everything and all the hand-waving that came out of his mouth to hand-waves the scummy shit he did.
Reddit is so weird like that.
1 iprez 2018-07-07
I had this same realization with the anti-Jordan Peterson folks. Look at these submission histories:
The first one is a woman in her 50's. The second is a male in his 30's. The last one is perhaps the funniest and saddest, the guy's entire existence revolves around talking about someone he despises. Peterson has occupied more time in his mind than perhaps his closest relatives.
These people remind me of the anti-gay preachers who can't stop talking about how bad being gay is only to find out they're gay themselves.
1 Brdcktt 2018-07-07
I'm not really gay. I don't see a problem with homosexuality. I'm completely comfortable with my "feminine side" and you could probably call me bi, but I generally prefer women.
1 iprez 2018-07-07
LOL! Are you retarded? How am I "recruiting for the Peterson cult"? Do you think I give a flying fuck if some 30 year old bisexual virgin likes JP or not? HAHAHA the amount of self-awareness you lack is killing me.
Now begone, go watch another video on Peterson or read his book again LOL
1 Brdcktt 2018-07-07
This is a problem. You're vilifying me because I read Peterson's book. Would I really be in the right if I were upset about something another person was doing if I did not make an attempt to educate myself regarding what that person is doing?
Do you not see the problem with kneejerk responses to people? It wouldn't be right for me to talk about how someone was preaching alt-right bullshit if I could not specifically identify times that person said those things. If I did not take a moment to read his book, I would be completely ignorant.
This is sad. What it means is that when something upsets you, rather than take the time to learn about the thing, you simply attack it and assume that you've never been wrong in your life. Reading a 400 page book takes about 2 days when the book is as light and rambling as Peterson's 12 rules. I legitimately read a bootleg copy of the book between about 2 am on a Saturday morning and 12 noon that same morning. I read the entire thing.
To put that in perspective, that's about as much time as a person would spend watching a season of a show they did not like much on netflix. Except, the producer of the show was ostensibly teaching people life lessons in the show, and the show was a documentary filled with "educational" value.
It's embarrassing that you view reading a book by someone you don't like or don't agree with as something deserving of ridicule. You're proclaiming you're own ignorance and your reluctance to educate yourself.
1 iprez 2018-07-07
Set aside Peterson for a moment as he's irrelevant to this discussion, the point is you're a fucking loser. Absolutely, positively, unarguably, quintessentially, a total and utter complete fucking loser. And not just your typical reddit loser, but 30 years old to boot!
Don't you get it? Do you not understand what I'm saying? I don't give a flying fuck if you like JP or not, some people hate him, many love him, but that's not the point. The point is you've narrowed down your life and JP is the center of it, if you replaced JP with something you actually did like and could improve your life you may be less of a fucking failure in life.
1 Brdcktt 2018-07-07
This is another problem. You don't know who I am. Legitimately, you have no idea. You're attacking people who are bisexual and homosexual as losers out of hand. You're just declaring people who have different sexual preferences that harm no one are losers.
You further don't know anything about my personal life. You don't. You can't call me a loser because I spend a lot of time on reddit. All that means is that I spend a lot of time on reddit. You don't know the circumstances under which I spend that time. You do not know what I do for work, where I've been educated, my hobbies, or anything similar.
Why are you still talking about me? Does it sound like the behavior of someone not a loser to regularly post about another person they have never met and who is of no real consequence to anyone on multiple forums on the internet?
I have never talked about u/iprez anywhere. I don't talk about you. I don't care about you. The only time I've mentioned you was when you started posting about me on the jordan peterson subreddit. At that time, I did not even mention you by name because: 1) It's kind of rude and trollish. 2) I don't care about you.
I'm talking to you now because I'm trying to point out that anything I do on reddit in relation to discussing the culture around Jordan Peterson is significantly less sad that the grudge you're holding against me. I'm a 31 year old tech worker. I'm not sure what your fascination with me is. It's kind of bizarre.
1 iprez 2018-07-07
I'm not sure if you're autistic or have some cognitive disability because your inability to understand what I'm saying is actually bizarre, a little worrying. I mean I don't discriminate against those with mental illnesses but you really think I'm calling you a loser because you're....gay? The fact that you take it up the poop chute is such a red herring it's blinding.
Also, no one is obsessed with you...I think you're not quite understanding the difference between what I'm doing and what you're doing. Back in high school I worked at Walmart and I once saw this homeless guy take a piss on the side of the building, I tell that story to this day not because I have a fascination with urine but because it's equal parts funny and sad.
You on the other hand are obsessed with a 56 year old man so much that despite the enormous amount of contempt you have for him you choose to indulge in his material. We've been through this so I'm really trying hard here to dumb it down so you can possibly understand what it appears like...it's like, suppose there was a blogger I couldn't stand and whom I disagreed with on everything, imagine if my life revolved around reading their material and talking about them with strangers about how much I hated them. Do you get it now?
1 Brdcktt 2018-07-07
You're being abelist and homophobic because I'm the anti-fan of a reactionary racist. Got it.
1 iprez 2018-07-07
Also
lol. Why are you so obsessed with racists? Do you fucking hate black people you goddamn hateful bigoted racist scum?
1 Brdcktt 2018-07-07
http://libgen.io/search.php?req=Our+Lady+of+the+Flowers&lg_topic=libgen&open=0&view=simple&res=25&phrase=1&column=def
1 iprez 2018-07-07
Why are you linking to piracy? You do realize that's stealing and violates reddit's ToS, right?
1 Brdcktt 2018-07-07
You don't like gay french erotica? What the hell is wrong with you.
1 iprez 2018-07-07
So what's the plan homie? Where do you see yourself in 5 years? Have a lucky gal or guy you gonna marry? Are you still single?
1 Brdcktt 2018-07-07
Probably going to be making 6 figures in cyber security.
1 Brdcktt 2018-07-07
https://www.youporngay.com/watch/7790846/two-hot-guys-give-each-other-a-blowjob-until-they-get-a-cumshot-in-the-face/
1 iprez 2018-07-07
1 quityourbullshit777 2018-07-07
holy shit wow. To be honest when someone say's" I'm 60 and I use reddit" it always confuses me as I just can't imagine if they get sucked into the behaviours mentioned but clearly as you have shown... It happens.
1 GadolBoobies 2018-07-07
The year: 2078
Location: New Londonstan, The Moon
"Finally, i've found a safe area away from Elon" - BuffaloSabresFan
[SpaceX rocket flies past]
"MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSK!!!" - BuffaloSabresFan
1 telandrias 2018-07-07
1 Nergaal 2018-07-07
Meh, people would rather see Trump fail than reach the conclusion that their life is better off than before his election.
1 AshrifSecateur 2018-07-07
Well yeah, because it's not because of him.
1 hellohello1992 2018-07-07
You people were giving Trump credit for unemployment going down literally a week after he got elected
1 Nergaal 2018-07-07
You people are not giving Trump credit for unemployment still going down two years after he got elected.
1 informat2 2018-07-07
Because it's a continuation of a trend that has been going on since the Obama years. The president doesn't really have a lot of control over the economy (unless they do something stupid like tank the economy with trade tariffs).
1 Nergaal 2018-07-07
You should get a larger plot showing last time the unemployment was this low.
1 informat2 2018-07-07
Here's the full plot from the source The last time it was this low was near the end of the Clinton administration in the late 90s.
1 VicisSubsisto 2018-07-07
You people were giving Bush blame for unemployment going up literally a month after he got elected.
1 Thulean-Dragon 2018-07-07
You're both equally shit, just in different ways
1 VicisSubsisto 2018-07-07
Agreed.
1 throwaway_999912 2018-07-07
Daddy trump is the best and he plays 4D chess 😍😍😍
1 Dogcheese- 2018-07-07
You don't really mean that do you Dad?😨
1 throwaway_999912 2018-07-07
Of course not son, sometimes I pretend to be retarded which means I'm retarded but I'm not that retarded yet
1 Dogcheese- 2018-07-07
Thang god(lol as if) sometimes I act retarded but it's not usually an act😇
1 d-amazo 2018-07-07
lol ah yes trump became president and america is now suddenly a fucking utopia amirite
1 pozzedshill 2018-07-07
It is much better and headed in the right direction
1 Matues49 2018-07-07
Imagine saying this unironically
1 pozzedshill 2018-07-07
I don't have to imagine it. Things are good.
1 UnoriginalStanger 2018-07-07
A trade war is in the right direction?
1 pozzedshill 2018-07-07
Yes.
1 TheRealTrueDarkLord 2018-07-07
If there's one thing Trump is doing well is being the Clyde Cash to failing journalists.
1 richmomz 2018-07-07
If you love drama then America under Trump IS, in fact, a utopia.
1 informat2 2018-07-07
Unless you happen to work in the many industries that benefit from free trade.
1 VintageCake 2018-07-07
Are people really upset by this guy sending people from two world-class engineering companies in an attempt to help?
Isn't this the same general audience that hates rich people for hoarding wealth without doing anything with it?
1 PizzaHoe696969 2018-07-07
Does anyone need any other reasons to hate this fascist pig alt-right problematic trump Zionist nazi?
Jesus Christ you guys are sheeple.
1 pitaenigma 2018-07-07
Isn't he South African?
1 m6ke 2018-07-07
Evil mayo who is involved in the oppression of South Africans? Get him!
1 xthorgoldx 2018-07-07
Worse: He's American by choice.
1 Barkasia 2018-07-07
1 PizzaHoe696969 2018-07-07
>tfw when citizenship
1 RealJackAnchor 2018-07-07
When when
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-07-07
tfw - mayo to the front of the limit-gration line
1 KillAllCentrists 2018-07-07
Melting pot, bitch.
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-07-07
According to his wikipedia page, he holds, in addition to US citizenship, Canadian as well as South African.
Musk has to Embargo himself.
1 Sarge_Ward 2018-07-07
Excellent copy-paste skills there friend
1 PizzaHoe696969 2018-07-07
thank you
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-07-07
South Africa is the 51st state?
1 UmmahSultan 2018-07-07
Boring hasn't done anything. They don't have any expertise whatsoever in safely excavating an area that has helpless people inside. The participation of a rocket company is even less helpful in this situation.
1 FTFallen 2018-07-07
"We got kids trapped at the end of this long underground tunnel. Can we get some help? You, engineer there, what do you do?"
"I dig long underground tunnels."
"Naw. Fuck off. We don't need you."
1 reallymakesuthink_ 2018-07-07
He isn't trying to help. It's a PR stunt.
1 PiratePrincePete 2018-07-07
Yes. /u/Zue3 has even had the gall to call us cowards while he sits in his echo chamber. I’ve branded him on RES and won’t let a single comment of his slide from now on.
He’s a coward that can’t contribute to society, much less the rescue of these kids. I hope his mommy’s basement is nice and warm.
Lol he doesn’t even know he’s shadowbanned from AgainstHateSubreddits and that none of his shitty comments show up lmao
1 dramasexual 2018-07-07
lmao for all the BS space daddy has done, this is what they're gonna bitch at him for?
/u/Senno_Ecto_Gammat, /u/zue3, you have to pick your battles better than this or you just look insane
1 zue3 2018-07-07
Oh its this pathetic sub again.
1 AlreadyPorchNaked 2018-07-07
Stop attention seeking you filthy Muskrat, just come out and admit you don't give a shit if those kids die if it means you can jerk it to Elon
1 Redditisdyingsoon 2018-07-07
Lol at drama users calling anyone else attention seekers.
1 mcslibbin 2018-07-07
Upvote our guests, you tourists
This was actually a good point
1 dramasexual 2018-07-07
More pathetic than getting upset about an effort to rescue thai children from a slow death because help is getting sent from someone you don't like?
1 Redditisdyingsoon 2018-07-07
And here you are getting upset over reddit posts you had nothing to do with. What you scared your fav thai ladyboy is trapped in those mines or something?
1 dramasexual 2018-07-07
I'm mocking a retard pham. I have no skin in this game either way. Other than being enough of a faggot to think that children suffocating to death in a thai cave is a bad thing.
1 Patsy02 2018-07-07
Imagine being enough of a faggot to think that children suffocating to death in a thai cave is a bad thing
smh tbh
1 serialflamingo 2018-07-07
That's a bit transphobic. Also racist I suppose
1 noobthrowthisaway 2018-07-07
Yes.
1 VicisSubsisto 2018-07-07
Today's Thai boy scouts are tomorrow's Thai ladyboys. /r/Drama, like Boring Co., is thinking of the future.
1 wow___justwow 2018-07-07
/r/drama doesn't have a lot of rules but no kink shaming is one of them get the fuck out of here you ladyboyphobic faggot
1 Going_up_the_Country 2018-07-07
https://youtu.be/cOy6hqzfsAs
1 TrailerParkBride 2018-07-07
Ok I just checked out that sub. It appears to be a den of snakes, trolls, and alt left SJWs. I saw several clear violations of Reddit law. Drama girls are smarter than the average cookies, they had to know we'd be on to them. Sad.
1 lifesbrink 2018-07-07
Lol, irony
1 MozzerDozzer 2018-07-07
Well, you responded. If this sub is pathetic then what are you?
1 SuperRockinCuts 2018-07-07
/u/zue3would rather sit in his shitty hugbox circlejerking about how much he hates Elon.
What’s that supposed incel even done to help solve the problem of those children being trapped? Absolutely nothing.
1 ChateauJack 2018-07-07
Forget being the Ford of space rockets and electric cars, Musk's true talent is managing to be the focus point of all the commie LARPers's absolute insanity.
1 Redditisdyingsoon 2018-07-07
Well his empire is built on pr circlejerking.
1 ChateauJack 2018-07-07
and another one
1 ChimpoTrashHole 2018-07-07
whats yours built on?
1 hayzeus 2018-07-07
Just regular jerking off
1 MozzerDozzer 2018-07-07
Somehow, for some reason, these Western commies all own Apple devices, originally envisioned by a ruthless bastard and basically a robber baron of the modern age, now deceased, Steve Handjobs.
Yet tankies never hated him. Ever. What the fuck gives?
1 KittehDragoon 2018-07-07
What? Lots of people hated Jobs, so much so that Reddit has a big ackshually moment whenever his name is mentioned. I always assumed some of them were Tankies.
1 ThickSantorum 2018-07-07
Most of that is just laughing at the fact that he tried to cure his (treatable with real medicine) cancer with berries.
1 KittehDragoon 2018-07-07
He was a huuggggeee asshole. He spent his life taking ideas that were 90% complete, sticking his name on them, then taking all the money and credit. Then there are the numerous anecdotes about what a dick he was from people who worked for him - he would humiliate people if they couldn't meet his expectations.
It's a shame he isn't still around, because he may be have been the only asshole billionaire to have ever been more narcissistic than Trump is, and an argument between them would have been a true unstoppable force / immovable object situation.
1 reallyrunningnow 2018-07-07
Shut up and accept your Lord and Savior Elon.
1 PhalanxCIWS 2018-07-07
Pack it up, folks.
1 TrailerParkBride 2018-07-07
MFW I can't compete with space-age superpower Thailand.
1 pozzedshill 2018-07-07
Hey, Thailand is the world leader in production of fake bussy
1 headasplodes 2018-07-07
Dude bussy lmao
1 AfflictedCretin 2018-07-07
Communists don't care about lives only their ideology counts.
1 MakeYourMarks 2018-07-07
Wow, I just checked and you're right. Red af.
1 infinitude 2018-07-07
That is one smug sub
1 AlertTheSPLC 2018-07-07
To be fair, dead kids is better for Dramacoin.
1 Thulean-Dragon 2018-07-07
No, dead kids are just sad.
Also, hi flair buddy ;^)
1 TheRealTrueDarkLord 2018-07-07
Wow, imagine hating someone so much just because /r/science and /r/futurology covers him a little too much.
This is why nobody likes tankies, they're way too into their own circlejerk I'm convinced they're robots.
1 THE_VIRGIN_SURGEON 2018-07-07
The community is a lot more diverse than 'tankies'. In it's inception the opposite to what you're suggesting was actually true - they were a minority. Of course now they represent a solid chunk, but solid chunk does not a majority make.
1 GenitalGesticulation 2018-07-07
"helping people for PR is bad, that's why I just sit around and smoke weed all day"
1 CoolGuyGuts 2018-07-07
Whomp Womp fuck kids stuck in mining disasters, we dont like Elon Musk.
This idiocy is.... suprising
1 rado1193 2018-07-07
/u/zue3
Imagine being so retarded that you think Engineers don't have any multidisciplinary training and that Aerospace Engineers only understand how to make rockets and airplanes fly.
This level of pure autism concentrate is astounding.
1 alaska_n_nebraska 2018-07-07
I know this probably will get deleted, but how do you trust a man who makes shitty cars in a tent with a submarine?
1 ff5r 2018-07-07
I mean regardless of what you think of Elon or if you like his cars, sending talented engineers to help is a positive.
1 rnjbond 2018-07-07
I wanted to like that subreddit, since I'm sick of all the hero worship of Elon Musk. But it's really LateStageCapitalism Part Two
1 Ultrashitposter 2018-07-07
Yeah i'm not much of a fan of him either, but i don't have an irrational hateboner for him.
1 darth_tiffany 2018-07-07
Why are people so pissed off about this? Either the plan works and a dozen human lives are saved, or it doesn't and we all get to pile on Rocket Daddy for using dead kids to self promote. IT'S WIN-WIN.
1 Take-Initiative 2018-07-07
I hate Elon but I'd rather see kids survive than be petty.
1 Ultrashitposter 2018-07-07
i don't