User Controls
Count Dankula demonetized
-
2019-01-20 at 4:15 PM UTC
-
2019-01-20 at 7:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Why do we need to load the risk of venture on to an executive board at all? The most effective structures we see in capitalism actually work to defuse risk from individuals. Institutions like venture capital, incorporation, and bankruptcy all actually work to move risk off of individuals and diffuse it to groups of individuals or lending institutions. This is ultimately the way command economies work, in so far a venture is necessary (and it does seem like there are distinct classes in "novel venture" and "filling a well understood market demand") then the state, representing the society as a whole, will bare that risk and distribute redistribute the reward. One thing that capitalism proves out is that it's not too hard, given a sufficient tolerance to risk and enough time, that generating profit is pretty straight forward. Instead of alienating society from the profit that's made my taking and hedging risks, why not offer the profits made on systematic risk taking and mitigation back to society instead of assigning it to elites who have the resources necessary to engage in that kind of pseudo-economic activity/
I definitely see the rationale here, and, at least in theory, totally agree with it.
What I would like to see is some real-world experimentation with it. Maybe it's been done, I haven't done any kind of in-depth research into the matter, but, like, for example, do shareholders actually have any voting rights when it comes to company-made decisions? Having never owned any stocks for longer than a few weeks at a time (as a brief experiment to get a feel for the whole process of buying and selling stocks), I don't know the whole protocol, but it seems like, if I understand the concept of publicly-traded companies, shareholders should have some kind of proportional say in what happens with the company that they partially own...
So if that's the case, at least there's some democracy, but, like you mentioned, the current system results in those who already have all the financial foundation to begin with are always going to own >50% of the shares, and thus, the votes of the minority shareholders will always fall on deaf ears anyway.
I would like to see a company that distributes shares evenly among all it's employees, even just a small one, and see how that pans out. Although, no matter how successful it is, it probably won't be enough to convince the bourgeoisie to simply give up their assets voluntarily. I guess that's why Marx said things like (paraphrasing) "the proletariat have nothing to lose but their chains." -
2019-01-20 at 7:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS Religions are protected groups. Beliefs in general are not protected. You know this. Stahp.
Freedom of speech is a protected right. Maybe you don't know what that's like being Canadian.
The issue is whose free speech is more important. YouTube/Facebook or the public?
So far we have our answer -
2019-01-20 at 8:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by GGG Freedom of speech is a protected right. Maybe you don't know what that's like being Canadian.
The issue is whose free speech is more important. YouTube/Facebook or the public?
So far we have our answer
Freedom of speech is important, but its constitutional protections have limits and only effect the government's ability to limit speech. Again, you know this, stahp.
The government couldn't stop YouTube evem if they wanted to. -
2019-01-21 at 6:56 AM UTCSoyboy IV: The Flower of Death and The Crystal of Life African Astronaut [the oppositely able-bodied hop-step-and-jump]
-
2019-01-21 at 7 AM UTC
-
2019-01-21 at 7:26 AM UTCSoyboy IV: The Flower of Death and The Crystal of Life African Astronaut [the oppositely able-bodied hop-step-and-jump]
-
2019-01-21 at 9:26 AM UTC
Originally posted by Grylls you’re full of shit
He's posted information about his trial pretty regularly, and several larger media outlets seemed to take interest in using the story as an example of "burgeoning white supremacism".
Google will confirm. It's just one more reason why the world is becoming a spooky place for those of us who actually believe in free speech. -
2019-01-21 at 9:36 AM UTC
-
2019-01-21 at 10:40 AM UTC
-
2019-01-21 at 11 AM UTC
Originally posted by Goy Division laws in democratic societies are also made through the expression of free speech by the public
While it's true on paper, I'm pretty sure that's just a myth. Laws are made by plutocrats and political technocrats (that is to say, experts in politics) to serve various interests - seldom the public's. And if the public's interests are being served, it's almost invariably tangential to the true motivation: which is self-serving political interest on the part of lawmakers themselves, who are beholden every few years to the whims of the public.
The public only gets to speak once every 4 years or so. -
2019-01-21 at 11:04 AM UTCAmerica is a politco-technocratic republican plutocracy, not a democracy. UwU
-
2019-01-21 at 11:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by Goy Division Freedom from the consequences of speech*
Guess what: laws in democratic societies are also made through the expression of free speech by the public.
Why the fuck should there be "consequences" for speech that doesn't actively call for violence against anyone else? It was clear that wasn't even close to his intent.
The fact that a lot of people are retarded (or just too tired of working two jobs and being bludgeoned over the head with political correctness all day) and don't bother to ponder the logical conclusions of all the whiny feely bullshit they've had crammed down their throats doesn't mean that they honestly believe that others people's lives should be ruined because they said a thing and someone else's feelings got hurt. -
2019-01-21 at 11:42 AM UTC
Originally posted by CASPER Why the fuck should there be "consequences" for speech that doesn't actively call for violence against anyone else?
Playing Devil's Advocate here, but... you're already making caveats, I see. Not all speech is free speech. Even by your standards. So why should your speech be free speech? Why should Dank's? Whether he meant to or not, his video made Nazism funny and adorable. He made Nazism palatable. Using your speech to soften the rough edges of speech that calls for violence - should that be protected? If the Nazis had a PR team who never explicitly said we should gas the jedis, or did say it but then pretended it was a joke - would that be free speech? His interviews with Tommy Robinson were attempts to humanize him and put a less evil face on the racist far right. He has a pretty clear history of supporting far right fascist views. Why should he be free to support and defend people who actively call for violence? 🤔 -
2019-01-21 at 12 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS Playing Devil's Advocate here, but… you're already making caveats, I see. Not all speech is free speech. Even by your standards. So why should your speech be free speech? Why should Dank's? Whether he meant to or not, his video made Nazism funny and adorable. He made Nazism palatable. Using your speech to soften the rough edges of speech that calls for violence - should that be protected? If the Nazis had a PR team who never explicitly said we should gas the jedis, or did say it but then pretended it was a joke - would that be free speech? His interviews with Tommy Robinson were attempts to humanize him and put a less evil face on the racist far right. He has a pretty clear history of supporting far right fascist views. Why should he be free to support and defend people who actively call for violence? 🤔
Well I'm not making the caveat. It's one that already exists. I feel like no matter what you say, it's up to the listener to translate that thought into action. The speaker didn't choose to take their own body and stab the offending party. But the listener did. That's a distinction that - at least in America- we've already made. And in most (most) cases, it's not difficult for it to be applied fairly. If a hardcore kid with no history of "problematic behavior", says some stupid shit, it's weighed one way. If someone who has a lengthy history of explaining the jedis as the cause of world strife, and spitting on old men outside the jedi community center- were to say the same thing, it has a different weight. You still can't know intention for sure, but you can pretty safely infer. Not to mention, when you're having anything to do with something that's a meme, trying to hold someone to account for the explicit meaning of those words is...fucking weird. But I wouldn't expect the people in positions of power in the judicial branches to understand any of that. It's basically irl shitposting. -
2019-01-21 at 12:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS While it's true on paper, I'm pretty sure that's just a myth. Laws are made by plutocrats and political technocrats (that is to say, experts in politics) to serve various interests - seldom the public's. And if the public's interests are being served, it's almost invariably tangential to the true motivation: which is self-serving political interest on the part of lawmakers themselves, who are beholden every few years to the whims of the public.
The public only gets to speak once every 4 years or so.
Yes yes, (((politics))) -
2019-01-21 at 12:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by CASPER Why the fuck should there be "consequences" for speech that doesn't actively call for violence against anyone else? It was clear that wasn't even close to his intent.
I don't think there should be. But I don't get to decide UK law.
It's obvious the country he lives in thinks there should be: either he should integrate to their moral culture or GTFO to Cambodia.The fact that a lot of people are retarded (or just too tired of working two jobs and being bludgeoned over the head with political correctness all day) and don't bother to ponder the logical conclusions of all the whiny feely bullshit they've had crammed down their throats doesn't mean that they honestly believe that others people's lives should be ruined because they said a thing and someone else's feelings got hurt.
I don't know, how far do you think Muslims in the West should be able to go? -
2019-01-21 at 12:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Goy Division I don't think there should be. But I don't get to decide UK law.
It's obvious the country he lives in thinks there should be: either he should integrate to their moral culture or GTFO to Cambodia.
I don't know, how far do you think Muslims in the West should be able to go?
1) for most of its history, the western world has affirmed its belief in the importance of the right to free speech. The fact that we're in the middle of our cringeworthy teenage years doesn't take away from that fact.
2) Good point. My inclination is to say fuck them, but that's mostly because when they say something, I know their intention is to hurt people. If I heard a conservative saying that trans people should be rounded into detention facilities and slaughtered, I'd fee the same way. If Jonathan swift had had a history of infanticide and cannibalism, he might've been in trouble. Maybe I'm too high to articulate properly, but it's kind of a potter Stewart situation. I know free speech when I see it. -
2019-01-21 at 1:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by CASPER 1) for most of its history, the western world has affirmed its belief in the importance of the right to free speech
What universe are you from? The modern idea of free speech is fairly new, perhaps inspired during the Enlightenment (at earliest), and western civilization's roots go back a lot further than that. Blasphemy throughout the history of western civilization has been punishable by various means including death. To say we've historically believed in the importance of free speech is silly. Modern violations of that particular freedom are par for the course or even less egregious by historical metrics.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-01-21 at 1:18 PM UTCAthens: Murders the fuck out of Socrates for questioning the gods.
People in western civilization now: "For most of our history we've been staunch advocates for free speech. Except for all those times we weren't, I guess. Whoops."The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
