User Controls
Rage Quit
-
2015-10-11 at 1:49 AM UTC
nope. never had a job lel.
Hey, braj, what's your dream job? I don't mean like "professional drug taker" or "porn start who only fucks hot chicks" but like if you could be qualified for and have any real life job in 2015 what would it be? You're pretty young right? So it's not like never having had a job is a big deal, but I'm curious what you would consider the best (or least-bad) way to make a living. -
2015-10-11 at 1:50 AM UTC
Hahaha, have you really lived in a box?
Made you laugh!!
By box I meant efficiency apartment. No, I haven't lived in a literal box, except when I was 4 or 5 and made cardboard box forts. -
2015-10-11 at 2:25 AM UTC
Made you laugh!!
By box I meant efficiency apartment. No, I haven't lived in a literal box, except when I was 4 or 5 and made cardboard box forts.
Hah, when I moved into the city I looked at two places before I knew what "efficiency studio" actually meant (I thought it was like florescent bulbs and lowflow showers lol). Honestly I'm not sure a box is a significant downgrade for that. I mean no judgment, I lived in a room in a house with like 8 flatmates and the whole thing was cramped as shit, gotta do what you gotta do but I always laugh at the doublespeak that is the efficiency apartment. -
2015-10-11 at 2:38 AM UTCImagine the absurd and creative living arrangements that could occur if housing was completely deregulated. If you spent all your time in VR it wouldn't make much of a difference, depending on your lifestyle. Nail together some plywood boards with insulation sandwitched between them on top of the roof, a heavy duty extension cord for power and a hose for water, the drain is just a grate over a PVC pipe, which leads to the actual plumbing, stove is electric double burners. Hmm, that would actually be pretty adequate.
-
2015-10-11 at 6:28 AM UTCYeah, I've done it a bunch of times , my last job was at a cupcake bakery and I went multiple days pretending to be nice to two faced faggots until I started getting more disgruntled and left in a really shitty way where I fucked them over with a bunch of work that they weren't going to be able to keep up with, without me. Serves them right, this was a couple months ago and they still can't find a replacement that will stay more than a week.
This last job has made me try to look into work that I can do by myself. I hate working with other people especially women. -
2015-10-11 at 6:38 AM UTC
Imagine the absurd and creative living arrangements that could occur if housing was completely deregulated. If you spent all your time in VR it wouldn't make much of a difference, depending on your lifestyle. Nail together some plywood boards with insulation sandwitched between them on top of the roof, a heavy duty extension cord for power and a hose for water, the drain is just a grate over a PVC pipe, which leads to the actual plumbing, stove is electric double burners. Hmm, that would actually be pretty adequate.
This is how you get things like compton -
2015-10-11 at 7:10 AM UTC*bans the construction of anything below the level of housing typical of high income people in 1st world countries in Haiti*
*poverty and homelessness suddenly eradicated, everyone has nice homes*
Makes perfect sense. How does prohibiting voluntary agreements between people benefit them in this case? This is a common economically illiterate style of though among leftists. Developers aren't required to build anything past the minimum requirements, why isn't all housing at that level? Because that isn't how markets/economies function. Consumer demand is a genuine factor. Higher quality, more spacious, housing is something people desire and it's brought to market. What you do is create a floor for the minimum arrangements people can legally consent to. What if some genuinely prefer that trade off for the lower price? What about the poor and the homeless who can't afford the bare minimum? How much does a simple studio rent for in SF?
Right above you stated "I lived in a room in a house with like 8 flatmates and the whole thing was cramped as shit". If the same amount of space was rented to you separately, you had tiny rooms and shared kitchens and bathrooms, it would likely be illegal in most areas. The majority of SF is actually zoned for single family homes, which is absolutely moronic and this is only one aspect of the multitude of harmful regulations. This is part of the reason why you see so many people sharing houses like this with room mates. The savings must have been worth the lower standard of living if you agreed to it.
Unfortunately, at your core, the majority of you, although you may never admit it, seem to be terrified of freedom and believe society would implode without your benevolent armchair central planning guided by your infinite wisdom/pretense of knowledge, as if this, people's lives, are a game of Sim City. -
2015-10-11 at 7:23 AM UTC
*bans the construction of anything below the level of housing typical of high income people in 1st world countries in Haiti*
*poverty and homelessness suddenly eradicated, everyone has nice homes*
Makes perfect sense. How does prohibiting voluntary agreements between people benefit them in this case? This is a common economically illiterate style of though among leftists. Developers aren't required to build anything past the minimum requirements, why isn't all housing at that level? Because that isn't how markets/economies function. Consumer demand is a genuine factor. Higher quality, more spacious, housing is something people desire and it's brought to market. What you do is create a floor for the minimum arrangements people can legally consent to. What if some genuinely prefer that trade off for the lower price? What about the poor and the homeless who can't afford the bare minimum? How much does a simple studio rent for in SF?
Right above you stated "I lived in a room in a house with like 8 flatmates and the whole thing was cramped as shit". If the same amount of space was rented to you separately, you had tiny rooms and shared kitchens and bathrooms, it would likely be illegal in most areas. The majority of SF is actually zoned for single family homes, which is absolutely moronic and this is only one aspect of the multitude of harmful regulations. This is part of the reason why you see so many people sharing houses like this with room mates. The savings must have been worth the lower standard of living if you agreed to it.
Hopefully you would know my position on the SF housing situation by now. Yes, governments or, in this case, the majority of voters, can make really bad decision. That's an argument for more competent authorities rather than less authority existing.
The fact that you of all people would try to appeal to the interests of the poor is pretty comical.Unfortunately, at your core, the majority of you, although you may never admit it, seem to be terrified of freedom and believe society would implode without your benevolent armchair central planning guided by your infinite wisdom/pretense of knowledge, as if this, people's lives, are a game of Sim City.
Unfortunately, at your core, the majority of you, although you may never admit it, stick your heads in the sand and pray that somehow dumbshit individuals, now lacking a highschool education due to the public school system being abolished for a $30 tax break, will be able to orchestrate an ideal society because somehow there's a natural law or divine command that chasing near-term rewards always leads to a global optimum and is totally sustainable forever. -
2015-10-11 at 3:32 PM UTC
*bans the construction of anything below the level of housing typical of high income people in 1st world countries in Haiti*
*poverty and homelessness suddenly eradicated, everyone has nice homes*
Makes perfect sense. How does prohibiting voluntary agreements between people benefit them in this case? This is a common economically illiterate style of though among leftists. Developers aren't required to build anything past the minimum requirements, why isn't all housing at that level? Because that isn't how markets/economies function. Consumer demand is a genuine factor. Higher quality, more spacious, housing is something people desire and it's brought to market. What you do is create a floor for the minimum arrangements people can legally consent to. What if some genuinely prefer that trade off for the lower price? What about the poor and the homeless who can't afford the bare minimum? How much does a simple studio rent for in SF?
Right above you stated "I lived in a room in a house with like 8 flatmates and the whole thing was cramped as shit". If the same amount of space was rented to you separately, you had tiny rooms and shared kitchens and bathrooms, it would likely be illegal in most areas. The majority of SF is actually zoned for single family homes, which is absolutely moronic and this is only one aspect of the multitude of harmful regulations. This is part of the reason why you see so many people sharing houses like this with room mates. The savings must have been worth the lower standard of living if you agreed to it.
Unfortunately, at your core, the majority of you, although you may never admit it, seem to be terrified of freedom and believe society would implode without your benevolent armchair central planning guided by your infinite wisdom/pretense of knowledge, as if this, people's lives, are a game of Sim City.
Lol listen to this Mal Mal, here in socialist Holland you are legally barred from renting a cheap house if you can afford an expensive one. -
2015-10-11 at 3:37 PM UTC
The fact that you of all people would try to appeal to the interests of the poor is pretty comical.
Lan i love you, but you should stop operating under the assumption that the right/libertarians/etc don't give a shit about the poor. The way in which the right wants to help the poor is simply fundamentally different than the way in which the left wants to.
-
2015-10-11 at 4:54 PM UTC
Lan i love you, but you should stop operating under the assumption that the right/libertarians/etc don't give a shit about the poor. The way in which the right wants to help the poor is simply fundamentally different than the way in which the left wants to.
exactly. just because the republican party only cares about the wealthy, doesn't mean that everyone on the right feels that way. -
2015-10-11 at 5:33 PM UTCRepulicans evil democrats are good! hurrr derrr
-
2015-10-11 at 5:52 PM UTCdemocrats are worse scumbags than the republicans, but you don't even know what we are talking about, Bill Krozby.
-
2015-10-11 at 6:42 PM UTC
democrats are worse scumbags than the republicans, but you don't even know what we are talking about, Bill Krozby.
I do know what I'm talking about, what I'm talking about is that it's common for younger college kids to automatically assume democrats are better than republicans because of buzz topics like, birth control, affirmative action, marijuana, abortion, gay rights, ect... when really they are one in the same for the most part.
I grew up with republican parents and they don't fit any of the stereotype portrayed in the media. well except that my dad is rich, white and old... but he's not racist, not a gun nut, not a walmart shopping hick.. overly religious, close minded ect.. -
2015-10-11 at 7:25 PM UTC
Lan i love you, but you should stop operating under the assumption that the right/libertarians/etc don't give a shit about the poor. The way in which the right wants to help the poor is simply fundamentally different than the way in which the left wants to.
I'm happy to admit that the right and libertarians are fully as capable of caring about the poor as anyone else, I was saying it was rich that malice specifically, based on the positions he's taken in the past, is acting like he cares.I do know what I'm talking about, what I'm talking about is that it's common for younger college kids to automatically assume democrats are better than republicans because of buzz topics like, birth control, affirmative action, marijuana, abortion, gay rights, ect… when really they are one in the same for the most part.
Hahahaha. Someone crying over the right's funniest boogeyman, the "college liberal" (second in absurdity, but also in the blackened hearts of every republican, to the great and feared "welfare queen") and then accusing someone else of being fooled by buzz topics is the height of irony.
Also most those issues seem pretty important. They may be divisive in the american political spectrum, and there may be many points where both parties align and you may disagree, but that doesn't mean there isn't a significant difference in ideology there or that everyone is equally wrong. There's clearly a better and a worse and if your reaction to your view not being perfectly represented in the american political spectrum is to throw your hands up and act superior to everyone else then you're just being a child. -
2015-10-11 at 7:51 PM UTC
I do know what I'm talking about
You are probably correct in that you might know what YOU are talking about, but I asserted that you don't know what WE are talking about, because this statement:Repulicans evil democrats are good! hurrr derrr
has nothing to do with the topic. I assume that you posted this in response to my derogatory remarks about republicans, which themselves were peripheral to the main argument. -
2015-10-11 at 11 PM UTCWow I made a post that went three pages deep= :)
I think tomorrow I'm just going to give two weeks notice and if the douch bag gives me any shit whatsoever my truck gets backed in and the tool box gets loaded.
Done end of story time to move on. -
2015-10-12 at 2:18 AM UTCWoo hoo
-
2015-10-12 at 4:38 AM UTC
Lol listen to this Mal Mal, here in socialist Holland you are legally barred from renting a cheap house if you can afford an expensive one.
What? How does that work? Fucking statists, that is horrifying and absolutely retarded.I'm happy to admit that the right and libertarians are fully as capable of caring about the poor as anyone else, I was saying it was rich that malice specifically, based on the positions he's taken in the past, is acting like he cares.
It doesn't necessarily mean I care about the poor, but there can be other positive effects stemming from that that I do care about, such as the greater availability of capital due to people not pissing it away on needlessly expensive housing.Hahahaha. Someone crying over the right's funniest boogeyman, the "college liberal"
It's not a boogeyman, it's a very real and destructive force. Would you like me to link you to a barrage of studies? At the very least they're by far the most annoying.
Some things that come to mind:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/MOON PERSONs-economics-voting-clueless-kids-these-days/374427/
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/06/10/study-finds-students-themselves-not-professors-lead-some-become-more-liberal-college
If they had examined gathered information on race and university enrollment the effect among college liberals would likely be far stronger, as younger people can reasonably be expected to have a greater sense of uniqueness, most of it unwarranted, along with the university environment also having a strong effect on this.
Really, a bunch of late teen and twenty something brats fresh out high school who think they know anything about the world because they took some introductory classes on a bunch of subjects and heard some professors rant about shit, generally learning just enough for multiple choice tests and retaining very little long-term. And due to the sheltered environment they base their self-perceptions on the people around them, allowing some to consider themselves brilliant based on their ability to string together as many buzzwords as possible and parrot left-wing talking points that have been parroted by millions of others for years, and somehow believing they're providing unique and valuable insights, while babbling. -
2015-10-12 at 12:14 PM UTCThe reason for this; http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/MOON PERSONs-economics-voting-clueless-kids-these-days/374427/ is that for three generations the public "education" system has been purposely miseducating young Americans.
