User Controls
Why are SJWs all in games, mtg, programming?
-
2016-09-24 at 8:04 PM UTC
Did you know that Lanny lives in San Francisco, paying at least 2K a month for a mere studio, and works in the financial district of SF as a programmer for finance? I shit you not, and he's only in his early 20s. Yuppie of epic proportions right there.
[greentext]>not joining the brotherhood of eternal love
[/greentext]
-
2016-09-24 at 9:44 PM UTC
Did you know that Lanny lives in San Francisco, paying at least 2K a month for a mere studio, and works in the financial district of SF as a programmer for finance? I shit you not, and he's only in his early 20s. Yuppie of epic proportions right there.
He is so bourgeois he'd make Marx's face color red with shame. A color most fitting i might add. -
2016-09-25 at 12:19 AM UTCBut the forum is totalitarian. Stalin would be proud.
-
2016-09-25 at 9:07 AM UTC
Oh for fuck's sake Lanny, alienation of labor and struggle with the capital holding class. :rollseyes:
"Someone said words I've been conditioned to think dismiss a view point, time to go into ultra-defensive mode". Nice.
​I understand your point about labor becoming divorced from capital and that sounds like it'd make a great topic to talk about. But, based on what you said, it sounds like SJWs are unknowingly in league with what you call the bad guys.
My point was that there's symmetry. You and your sect are as maligned by the capital holding class (the "bad guys" although I'm skeptical of the knowingness of even the greater villains of our economic system) as are the "SJWs".No application of force or threat, not even economical. Just pure social status.
Well I'd like to refrain from supporting the anti-SJW position but the threat of social black listing via the racist/sexist/undesirable label is fundamentally economic. Most people so threatened have existed in a society where threat to status was meaningless. Just think how much of a fuck you give about the opinion of people on NiS matters to you: none, I hope. The issue is not the loss of faith but the ruthless efficiency some sects have shown in translating dismissal into economic sanctions. \Call that man a sexist and watch him lose everything he's ever had - his money, job, family, and friends. And you got "society" to do it for you. Beautiful, isn't it?
In a different era technologists suffered another bugbear. Again, not everyone who pursues social justice pursues economic sanctions as frequently or so lacking warrant as do the most hated enemies if the old guard.I feel that SJWs are a threat that's an order of magnitude larger than these tards. Alt-righters are playing at the old kind of fascism we all know and love, but SJWs are building some new horrible kind of fascism that's never been seen before (just look at their methods - public court, infiltration, etc.).
See again expanding and contracting circles of "SJWs". Also public court and social infiltration are nothing new among even the highest castes you might consider yourself a member of, if you haven't seem lynch-mob mentality in HN threads in the last half decade then you either haven't been watching or are blind. I'm not saying such sentiment is always wrong, but realize you're facing very similar attitudes as yours and mine have cultivated in the past.It's just sickening that someone so far removed from reality has access to resources and just wastes them. Well, waste isn't the right word - he just disperses them to anyone that wants to make some money off of his warped view of the world.
If you take nothing else away I hope you come to understand how your sense of repulsions does nothing but hurt you. No one who feels the fiery righteous anger at the defiling of our sacred tenants has ever done anything to right the situation. Realize at least that your "enemies" (those you find yourself opposed to, regardless of those who may be responsible for your miseries) thrive on your rage, every angry gripe you make is just ammunition in the vilification of you and yours,Did you know that Lanny lives in San Francisco, paying at least 2K a month for a mere studio, and works in the financial district of SF as a programmer for finance? I shit you not, and he's only in his early 20s. Yuppie of epic proportions right there.
"Yuppie of epic proportions" sure. I've said this before, but I play the game I'm faced with. No one is helped by my poverty in the face of an environment that unfairly privileges me. Whatever moral flaw you perceive with my existence (and fear not, fair reader, for I know my flaws ever so much more intimately than you and hate myself accordingly) it's better than the alternative (mean of my peers) which I guess justifies at least my existence. -
2016-09-25 at 9:16 AM UTC
Lanny, when we bitch about "SJWs" we're bitching about the "cultural crusaders"
s
When you speak of cultural crusaders what exactly do you mean? Is the SJW comprative to the average ISIS crusader fighting jihad for the global domination of his prefered culture? Are we speaking of the christian crusaders who fought back muslim hordes intent on dominating europe? Are we speaking of college students who, having nothing better to do, have chosen to fight make it the most important thing to ensure ANY man woman or child has the right to ANY bathroom reserved for Men, Women, or Children? Are we speaking of the cultural crusaders such as the Amish who have taken to forming their own structure within that which exists in the belief that their structure ultimately will prevail?Easy test: if you've ever non-sarcastically used the word "heteronormative" IRL you should kill yourself immediately.
This tho 4 reel
-
2016-09-25 at 9:01 PM UTC
"Someone said words I've been conditioned to think dismiss a view point, time to go into ultra-defensive mode". Nice.
No, I'm dismissing it because the concepts, and right now I'll focus on the former, are moronic and the former of little importance.
To begin with, I'll illustrate a problem with the concept of alienation of labor. As economies develop they generally shift considerably to service jobs, and it should be mentioned that the glorification of manufacturing is unjustified and untenable. Let's use someone who gives massages as an example: How exactly would this person "own the product of their labor"? Alright, now bring to mind the myriad of other service related jobs, jobs where people aren't manufacturing anything. See the problem? You could bring up rents, working for others under a hierarchical system, but that does not change this.
Second, workers cannot own the full product of their labor. It is impossible because their labor isn't the only factor involved in production! I would highly recommend this introductory critique of Marxist economics by this author, he's very leftist, and incredibly knowledgeable and intelligent; I first came across him due to his prolific writing criticizing Austrian economics (Like Bryan Caplan and David Friedman, I am not an Austrian.): http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.bl...1-updated.html
There's the human capital involved of the "labor holding class" (You seem to base your biased perceptions on the worst personal anecdotes you've experienced; the founders of empiricism would paddle you raw!), risk involved (most businesses fail, along with economic shifts), diminishing marginal utility and inflation involved in workers being paid regardless of the success of the company or whether they have earned enough income to cover any initial debt, as opposed to having earned the income themselves of acquired the capital by other means and having taken on any debt or risk directly, cost of any factors of production used, the value of having a market to sell your labor as opposed having to create a business yourself, the enormous and multifaceted problems of attempting an economy without capital holding, or likely your moronic idea of state doing so (Absolutely no respect for state Marxists, you are imbeciles) etc.
Here is a good talk relevant to my next point, on Chinese worker who produce luxury handbags: https://www.ted.com/talks/leslie_t_c...rs?language=en
As she says, they don't want the product of their labor because it isn't preferable to them. How exactly do you envision a society where workers aren't "alienated from the product of their labor", numerous other issues aside? Everyone owns what they produce and has to trade or sell it? Would money exist? Why wouldn't they prefer to be paid for it in currency instead, which is far more versatile and efficient? You mentioned yeoman farmers, which is amusing because farmers have one of the highest suicide rates in most countries and they're about as close to the idyllic image of "owning the product of your labor", not being "alienated" from it, as you can get: http://www.newsweek.com/2014/04/18/d...rm-248127.html
Not to mention that this system would be so inefficient and incapable of sustaining an enormously complex modern society that you would destroy much of the current standard of living and everyone would be worse off, just from this one act.
You're still in your early 20s so hopefully you'll grow out of this crap/phase. Try picking up a good critique of Marxism/Marxist economics or reading a book on economics that wasn't written by some polemical pinko. -
2016-09-25 at 11:39 PM UTC
No, I'm dismissing it because the concepts, and right now I'll focus on the former, are moronic and the former of little importance.
To begin with, I'll illustrate a problem with the concept of alienation of labor. As economies develop they generally shift considerably to service jobs, and it should be mentioned that the glorification of manufacturing is unjustified and untenable. Let's use someone who gives massages as an example: How exactly would this person "own the product of their labor"? Alright, now bring to mind the myriad of other service related jobs, jobs where people aren't manufacturing anything. See the problem? You could bring up rents, working for others under a hierarchical system, but that does not change this.
Second, workers cannot own the full product of their labor. It is impossible because their labor isn't the only factor involved in production! I would highly recommend this introductory critique of Marxist economics by this author, he's very leftist, and incredibly knowledgeable and intelligent; I first came across him due to his prolific writing criticizing Austrian economics (Like Bryan Caplan and David Friedman, I am not an Austrian.): http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.bl...1-updated.html
There's the human capital involved of the "labor holding class" (You seem to base your biased perceptions on the worst personal anecdotes you've experienced; the founders of empiricism would paddle you raw!), risk involved (most businesses fail, along with economic shifts), diminishing marginal utility and inflation involved in workers being paid regardless of the success of the company or whether they have earned enough income to cover any initial debt, as opposed to having earned the income themselves of acquired the capital by other means and having taken on any debt or risk directly, cost of any factors of production used, the value of having a market to sell your labor as opposed having to create a business yourself, the enormous and multifaceted problems of attempting an economy without capital holding, or likely your moronic idea of state doing so (Absolutely no respect for state Marxists, you are imbeciles) etc.
Here is a good talk relevant to my next point, on Chinese worker who produce luxury handbags: https://www.ted.com/talks/leslie_t_c...rs?language=en
As she says, they don't want the product of their labor because it isn't preferable to them. How exactly do you envision a society where workers aren't "alienated from the product of their labor", numerous other issues aside? Everyone owns what they produce and has to trade or sell it? Would money exist? Why wouldn't they prefer to be paid for it in currency instead, which is far more versatile and efficient? You mentioned yeoman farmers, which is amusing because farmers have one of the highest suicide rates in most countries and they're about as close to the idyllic image of "owning the product of your labor", not being "alienated" from it, as you can get: http://www.newsweek.com/2014/04/18/d...rm-248127.html
Not to mention that this system would be so inefficient and incapable of sustaining an enormously complex modern society that you would destroy much of the current standard of living and everyone would be worse off, just from this one act.
You're still in your early 20s so hopefully you'll grow out of this crap/phase. Try picking up a good critique of Marxism/Marxist economics or reading a book on economics that wasn't written by some polemical pinko.
[size=6]Approved[/size]
Lemme ask you what school of economic thought you subscribe to if not Austrian? Don't tell me Keynesian. -
2016-09-26 at 12:15 AM UTCAs Milton Friedman said, "There is no such thing as Austrian economics, only good and bad economics." I will always be unlabeled and simply support what is most strongly supported by the available evidence and argumentation.
-
2016-09-26 at 1:13 AM UTC
No, I'm dismissing it because the concepts, and right now I'll focus on the former, are moronic and the former of little importance.
To begin with, I'll illustrate a problem with the concept of alienation of labor. As economies develop they generally shift considerably to service jobs, and it should be mentioned that the glorification of manufacturing is unjustified and untenable. Let's use someone who gives massages as an example: How exactly would this person "own the product of their labor"? Alright, now bring to mind the myriad of other service related jobs, jobs where people aren't manufacturing anything. See the problem? You could bring up rents, working for others under a hierarchical system, but that does not change this.
Second, workers cannot own the full product of their labor. It is impossible because their labor isn't the only factor involved in production! I would highly recommend this introductory critique of Marxist economics by this author, he's very leftist, and incredibly knowledgeable and intelligent; I first came across him due to his prolific writing criticizing Austrian economics (Like Bryan Caplan and David Friedman, I am not an Austrian.): http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.bl...1-updated.html
There's the human capital involved of the "labor holding class" (You seem to base your biased perceptions on the worst personal anecdotes you've experienced; the founders of empiricism would paddle you raw!), risk involved (most businesses fail, along with economic shifts), diminishing marginal utility and inflation involved in workers being paid regardless of the success of the company or whether they have earned enough income to cover any initial debt, as opposed to having earned the income themselves of acquired the capital by other means and having taken on any debt or risk directly, cost of any factors of production used, the value of having a market to sell your labor as opposed having to create a business yourself, the enormous and multifaceted problems of attempting an economy without capital holding, or likely your moronic idea of state doing so (Absolutely no respect for state Marxists, you are imbeciles) etc.
Here is a good talk relevant to my next point, on Chinese worker who produce luxury handbags: https://www.ted.com/talks/leslie_t_c...rs?language=en
As she says, they don't want the product of their labor because it isn't preferable to them. How exactly do you envision a society where workers aren't "alienated from the product of their labor", numerous other issues aside? Everyone owns what they produce and has to trade or sell it? Would money exist? Why wouldn't they prefer to be paid for it in currency instead, which is far more versatile and efficient? You mentioned yeoman farmers, which is amusing because farmers have one of the highest suicide rates in most countries and they're about as close to the idyllic image of "owning the product of your labor", not being "alienated" from it, as you can get: http://www.newsweek.com/2014/04/18/d...rm-248127.html
Not to mention that this system would be so inefficient and incapable of sustaining an enormously complex modern society that you would destroy much of the current standard of living and everyone would be worse off, just from this one act.
You're still in your early 20s so hopefully you'll grow out of this crap/phase. Try picking up a good critique of Marxism/Marxist economics or reading a book on economics that wasn't written by some polemical pinko.
So a lot of these issues go away when I point out I'm talking about a certain class of technology worker here rather than full economies. As for owning the product of one's labor in the context of rendering services, the point is not that the worker has their little bundle of labor materialized and owned at the end of the work process, alienation happens when surplus value is extracted from the worker by the supplier of capital. If a worker receives the full value of their labor in rendering a service they're not being alienated from their labor, the work product of rendering a service is the value paid for it.
So you're going to try to say something like "the organizational effort/risk endurance of the capital holding class represents their contribution to the work product so surplus value isn't" which is going to reduce the disagreement to foundational differences. I'm willing to accept that the duties generally carried out by the capital holding class today have value, project management is kind of a joke but ostensibly it fills some sort of need. That's well and fine. The issue is that this organizational work at best ought not be privileged, it consumes at most 3 times the typical laborer's effort (that is 24 hours of work in a day which is an obvious impossibility but it's a upper bound) and yet we can find examples where more than 3 times the material compensation is paid to that class. The value of the full operation is X and if value provided to laborers is not proportional to their investment of labor in the undertaking then then they're being alienated from the value their labor produces. -
2016-09-26 at 1:33 AM UTCLanny, the vast majority of businesses don't have particularly large profits. Unfortunately for people in general, the effect generally increasing the further to the left and more strongly one aligns oneself, the default image in their mind of corporations (limited liability are a form of corporation that's commonly used by small businesses) are large publicly traded ones that capture absurdly disproportionate rents by buying the power of political authority to skew things in their favor.
For the vast majority of businesses the "surplus value" is a few percentage points at most, and it completely ignores everything I wrote about it being impossible for a worker to receive their "full value". You're honestly telling me that a few percentage points makes such a massive difference, something like 3 cents on the dollar?The issue is that this organizational work at best ought not be privileged, it consumes at most 3 times the typical laborer's effort (that is 24 hours of work in a day which is an obvious impossibility but it's a upper bound) and yet we can find examples where more than 3 times the material compensation is paid to that class. The value of the full operation is X and if value provided to laborers is not proportional to their investment of labor in the undertaking then then they're being alienated from the value their labor produces.
The labor theory of value is false and any system operating under the pretense of its veracity is untenable.
Check the link I posted for a breakdown of the LTV. Regardless of what you believe, what you wrote is founded upon the LVT, unless you clarify and expound upon it. There's a good reason why it isn't and hasn't been taken seriously. I know, argument from the majority/authority, but you've stated that under your ideal system you would have experts dictate aspects of society instead of the ignorant masses, and the vast majority of economists have this view for a good reason. -
2016-09-27 at 3:53 PM UTCIt's because there are many, many personal safe spaces within the industry.
