For now. Fight on.
YouTube's solution is dogshit, though. One-size-fits-all fixes like this just damage the community. They could turn this around with a more nuanced response, but they're just going nuclear, it's fucked.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America
- Thread starter Darth Meteos
- Start date
- Views 233,254
- Replies 4,364
- Likes 4
- Status
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,743
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,539
- Country
D
Deleted User
Guest
That is one hell of a bad argument. It's like just telling a poor person to go buy a new phone if their current phone doesn't work well.
First off. Say you wanted to move a non capitalist society. You would still
A. Need to interact with capitalism to even move from a capitalist society out of one. and that's assuming that you can save up enough money for such a trip, which a poor person may never get to do because wages are ass.
B. You realistically cannot live off the land. Since most resources are reserved by capitalists. See food supply chain, wood needed for a house or building material, assuming you can build a stable home and also assuming you have a space of land that is somehow not owned by someone, and anyone at all, which is a massive ask considering the retail market and urbanization and other shit. That's also failing to realize that even if you manage to do all those things. Monsantos or x capitalist buisness here can still fuck you over, since they can sue you due to their crops that they really don't keep in check has patented Gene's. (Which would get into your crops because of cross pollination) In which you will be sued, and oh hey, capitalism you great friend buddy pal friend comes by and will sue you. And if that doesn't get you in, other shit will.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
And realistically, you would likely not even get into the build home phase since what are you going to build that home with. Air?
Oh and that's another thing. That's also assuming you have some sort of system for idk. Heating and cooling. Just go build yourself AC 4head.
Last edited by ,
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,743
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,539
- Country
It's the same point. When a person starves to death simply because they have no money, that's a feature of capitalism, not a bug. If it was really as easy to reject the system from within as you claim, at least half the country would be doing so today.
Last edited by Xzi,
No, it's nothing like that. I'm not telling anyone to do anything.
To be similar to my argument I'm saying that poor people would be allowed to buy a phone, while you would somehow prevent them even i they'd managed to obtain money by some means.
May never, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for everyone to not participate in capitalism.
Some people do.
You're saying it's impossible to live without air conditioning anywhere in the US?
Last edited by smf,
D
Deleted User
Guest
wow there buddy, friendpal chummy friend pal. your taking a diddle step 1 too close to really stretching that definition of everyone getting a choice friend pal chummy chum chum pal.
But yeah, that's a big fucking stretch.
Remember how EA said lootboxes are player choice and what was it... optional? And enhances the players experience but we both know that it's not really optional.
If you can't tell what I'm saying here. Tl;dr captalism is like EA's lootboxes. Maybe less gambling, but, not very optional isn't it.
I mean idk. Last time I checked, moving takes over 10,000 dollars if it's over seas. And uh... How much are people saving on average again?
Oh wait. right. I forgot, no no it's not that people have really tiny wages, or that if they get sick and it's fatal they just have to go die because paid health care system go weeeeeee.
getting a job to move away from capitalism, to gain capital to move, is in itself, participating in capitalism.
i
Can everyone move? I mean you can say that everyone can move but does everyone actually have the resources to go move else where?(last time I checked, you need capital for that. oh wait, there goes you having to go interact with capitalism for multiple years again.)
And What if it's a situation like Texas? since we both know climate change is a real thing. Sometimes you just need it, willingly or not.
I mean unless you want to put death as an option. freezing to death or over heating to death is a perfectly humane and valid option that we all should just be okay with!
if you can't tell by my use of italics in this specific instance, I'm using a mocking tone.
Last edited by ,
I have never once stated that everyone got a choice. The opposite of nobody having the choice isn't everybody has the choice, only once person would need to have the choice.
I have never stated that everyone could move. Again, only once person in all of the US would need to have the resources.
WTF are you going on about? Mock all you like but saying that because you could possibly die in death valley without AC means that everyone living in any part of the US needs AC, is just plain dumb. People survived in the US without AC before AC was invented.
Nice strawman though. Keep building it.
Last edited by smf,
D
Deleted User
Guest
Aka, you saying that it is possible for everyone to get a choice, saying everyone can do it, and then....
And here's you now back tracking on that exact statement, now saying only some can do it, which in the context of something systemic isn't a choice.
If only 0.1% of people from any demographic can make a specific choice that the 99% can't. that's not really a choice. that's not everyone getting a equal opportunity. Yeah you can say "but the option was there"but that's not realistic.
and climate change wasn't much of a thing back then now was it?
Comparing the times of old to now is really retarded. Some regions are going to drastically change because of that.
Also a lot of people died from heat death or freezing to death back then. saying that people lived is really stupid, because yeah, people lived, but you do realize people did die of those things, quite frequently back in whatever fuck time your thinking of.
and I am telling you that they have a very low chance of reaching that point to obtain those resources, even once.
one fuck up, one injury, could cost you 10,000 dollars in the health care system. And that number is what the average hospital bill is.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Oh and your "just live off the land" kind of thing also doesn't work, I know I pointed at some other stuff, but fundamentally it also just doesn't work. It's illegal to do that mostly because property laws and such, and that I guarantee you 100% of the time, some land that you try to live off is owned by someone , united states government or someone else.
unless, you somehow own your own land, which I mean, last time I checked most Americans can only afford to rent homes and such. So you must be stupidly rich or at least in the top 5% which lucky you.
Last edited by ,
For clarity, my point is that if it's possible for a single person to not participate in capitalism for a period of time (and I believe some individuals have managed it) then it's not true to say that it's impossible to not participate in capitalism. I have said earlier in the thread that not everyone could do it.
Either I have failed to clearly explain it or you've failed to understand it. Further arguing about what I mean is pointless as I have not changed my position. If you still refuse to accept that this is what I meant, then there is no point in continuing and I'll take any further attempt by you as trolling.
I accept it will be difficult and it might be uncomfortable, but that is not the same as impossible. It might require you or your parents, grandparents, great grandparents etc to have participated in capitalism. However if you include that then even if we get rid of capitalism completely (i.e we implement Star Trek) then you would still be arguing that we were still participating in capitalism because of what had come before and that doesn't make sense.
Last edited by smf,
Ted Cruz is a party popper, the Biden administration is preparing a Big Bean Burrito party to celebrate the end of the pandemic and Ted is spoiling the surprise. What a dum-dum, now everybody knows.
D
Deleted User
Guest
Holy mother of hoop hopping insanity. Jesus what is this? gymnastics class?
So let me get this straight. when you say everyone, you never meant everyone, but someone, which in this case would probably be some rich white guy who is probably in the top 10%
because they can dodge capitalism for a short period of time,
that means people can avoid capitalism entirely?!
WHAT METAL GYMNASTICS ARE WE PULLING!?
further more this statement (the fact you say once) Implies long term.
That "only once" aka 1 time, a person would be able to make that choice.
But also is completely contradictory.
the exact opposite of nobody is everybody, it's not a few people, or a lot of people, . What the fuck do you mean that it isn't the case? Like I'm sorry but I don't play 8 dimensional chess and fucking wii ultimate hoop challenge at the exact same time. What your saying takes a degree of mental gymnastics that I've honestly never seen.
my point being that your not making any sense. I can take almost any one of your statements, with this new context, and point out how ludicrous it sounds, as none of it is sound logic.
Last edited by ,
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,743
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,539
- Country
Ted Cruz feigning empathy for immigrants is laughable. Dude clearly doesn't even give a fuck about his own constituents, let alone anybody from outside of Texas.
D
Deleted User
Guest
let's go back to where some of this started.
and "you" in this general statement is a stand in for everyone, since this is the internet and often we don't know each other, this is later supported by your other arguments.
but now with the new context that it's only some people, and has requirements this statement no longer makes any sense.Since any time mean implicitly implies that individuals in question have the resources to do it any time, when we already just established that was not the case.
I can say everyone here since, it in practicality is nearly everyone. If I draw from a random pool of people in a walamart, most of the time it's going to be the rest of the 90% in that entire pool (exuding managers or store managers, since there are odds that they just might go into the top 10%, can't say for certain)
You mentioned living in a cave earlier, which I already established that land ownership is a thing that only the wealthiest of people have and that property laws are a thing, in which you would be arrested. Which is not an everyone thing. Now considering for inflexible dependencies such as medication since some people require to be able to live, and that little dumb reality you made completely breaks. Most people who are socialists aren't looking for a short time vacation away from capitalism, they are looking to live in a entirely different system, where workers own the means to production and it is people over profit. Which again, your cave idea doesn't work. It is a systematic change that is being looked for. Not some vacation time in lala land.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Further more I also already established that most people cannot afford to move over seas, and takes a great deal of capital to move. Which combined with the fact I already explained that peoples wages are ass low, lower than they have any right to be here in the united states, combined with any unexpected cost such as a medical bill. It makes it downright unrealistic to just tell people to move to go fix their "I don't like capitalism problem, I'm a socialist"
and you can't tell them to stop paying bills, or else they are going to loose their home, as I already established that most Americans don't own, but rent. Which in that case, not having shelter is pretty much a death sentence.
So your saying that you can turn away from captalism at any point,
and "you" in this general statement is a stand in for everyone, since this is the internet and often we don't know each other, this is later supported by your other arguments.
but now with the new context that it's only some people, and has requirements this statement no longer makes any sense.Since any time mean implicitly implies that individuals in question have the resources to do it any time, when we already just established that was not the case.
For most people, and realistically speaking it is essentially everyone It isn't an option.
I can say everyone here since, it in practicality is nearly everyone. If I draw from a random pool of people in a walamart, most of the time it's going to be the rest of the 90% in that entire pool (exuding managers or store managers, since there are odds that they just might go into the top 10%, can't say for certain)
You mentioned living in a cave earlier, which I already established that land ownership is a thing that only the wealthiest of people have and that property laws are a thing, in which you would be arrested. Which is not an everyone thing. Now considering for inflexible dependencies such as medication since some people require to be able to live, and that little dumb reality you made completely breaks. Most people who are socialists aren't looking for a short time vacation away from capitalism, they are looking to live in a entirely different system, where workers own the means to production and it is people over profit. Which again, your cave idea doesn't work. It is a systematic change that is being looked for. Not some vacation time in lala land.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Further more I also already established that most people cannot afford to move over seas, and takes a great deal of capital to move. Which combined with the fact I already explained that peoples wages are ass low, lower than they have any right to be here in the united states, combined with any unexpected cost such as a medical bill. It makes it downright unrealistic to just tell people to move to go fix their "I don't like capitalism problem, I'm a socialist"
and you can't tell them to stop paying bills, or else they are going to loose their home, as I already established that most Americans don't own, but rent. Which in that case, not having shelter is pretty much a death sentence.
Last edited by ,
This thread is getting more ludicrous by the minute. I'm so happy to see that real, honest to God debates here now sound like Month Python transcripts.
I'll need someone to explain to me how living without AC in Death Valley relates to the Biden presidency. If it doesn't, I think we can return to the original subject. The diversion is very amusing, but entirely off-topic.
I'll need someone to explain to me how living without AC in Death Valley relates to the Biden presidency. If it doesn't, I think we can return to the original subject. The diversion is very amusing, but entirely off-topic.
No, that isn't what I was saying or meant. Which I've repeatedly told you and you're ignoring me, so you're either mentally unwell or trolling.
I didn't bother reading past this opening sentence as your post is nothing to do with what the point I was making.
Which I will repeat, if one person can turn away from capitalism at any point in life then by very definition it's possible to not participate in capitalism. I don't expect everyone to have the opportunity, or to want to do it.
You seem to want me to be saying something else that you can argue against, for reasons only known to you.
If you need an analogy to help you understand. It's possible to run the 100 meters in 9.58 seconds as Usain Bolt did it, but I won't ever be able to and I don't even want to put myself through trying.
Last edited by smf,
As usual, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. "100% of the time..." lol.
https://offgridpermaculture.com/Finding_Land/Free_Land___Living_Off_Grid_With_No_Money.html
https://homesteadsurvivalsite.com/top-10-states-living-off-grid/
Then there's this for other situations: https://www.avail.co/education/articles/squatter-rights-what-landlords-need-to-know#:~:text=What Are Squatter Rights?&text=Adverse possession laws allow squatters,the property, according to FindLaw.
And do you know why there are so many places for rent? Because in the long-run, the person renting out the property is either making money off of it, or using that money to pay for the property itself, so that they can one day move in without owing a bank anything for it. How can they make money? Because renting costs MORE than buying. There is land both with and without a structure (house) for sale in every single State. Else (no money, or pretty much any other lame excuse you can think of), refer to link 1.
It's like you argue just for the sake of arguing, while being too damn lazy to even do a Google search.
Last edited by urherenow,
The most pathetic president
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/MeOwOser/status/1378187565774340098
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/MeOwOser/status/1378187565774340098
In all fairness, users are not allowed to comment on any White House videos anymore, which is curious to me. They don't have any other means to express their dissatisfaction or approval besides the Like/Dislike buttons. Why disable the comments? I was under the impression that interacting with the administration was a First Amendment right - it was certainly cause enough for multiple lawsuits when the Trump admin started blocking users spamming the POTUS account on Twitter. At that time the courts have decided that the right to comment on official government accounts is constitutionally protected, so why is the White House so afraid of detractors? That comment box should be permanently open. If the American right-wing had any sense at all, the matter would already be in court once more. Sadly, it's too busy being offended by "satanic shoes" to do anything effective or worthwhile.
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Locked
-
- Locked
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
@
Sonic Angel Knight:
Or, I also heard that if you use flash memory, it can act as more "RAM" at least windows tell me when I stick a flash drive into it. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
K3Nv2:
I can think of the design teams process another joystick and no audio or a joystick and mono audio -
-
-
-
-
-
-
