|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States42655 Posts
On May 27 2025 22:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 22:05 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 15:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
In general, I think vandalism is very counter-productive - I think maybe you can make an exception for something like the MLK-assassination-riots, but the normal reaction I see is that people become less sympathetic and that the chance of a political win dwindles, although here you could also argue, I guess, that riots are also more likely to happen where the chance of a political win was small in the first place. Vandalizing in general, sure. Targeted vandalism in a way that directly hurts the wealth of a drug addict mentally unstable oligarch who is openly using that wealth to control the media to push pro-Nazi views and who is seizing control of parts of our government, that's smart, healthy, patriotic, and necessary. If people had started doing it a few years ago then the Tesla stock price drops and he can't buy Twitter on credit using Tesla stock as collateral. To what degree can you really attribute Tesla's drop in stock price to vandalism? The reason I'm asking is that in Europe, I haven't really heard of any tesla-targeting vandalism, but I believe sales have tanked harder over here; the people who like EV's and the people who like Trump or are nazis are two groups with very little overlap. Additionally I can totally picture some people being like 'god damnit crime is out of control we need stronger police presence' as a response to 'somebody fucking lit my car on fire'.
I’m not talking about a current Tesla price drop or current vandalism. I’m talking about the impact of a hypothetical sustained popular campaign far larger than that. Doesn’t even have to be vandalism, people can engage at their own level of radicalization. You see a Tesla charging in public, you unplug it. You park so closely behind them they can’t get out. Whatever. The public have always been able to use negative social pressure to reinforce why not to act in certain ways.
They’re already doing the stronger police presence and they’re already grabbing people off the street. I’ve always thought of you as a reasonable rational man but we do not live in reasonable rational times. If the world was filled with people like you then it wouldn’t be necessary but it isn’t.
Politically motivated violence has always been necessary to deal with bad actors who don’t understand that the social contract comes with obligations in addition to protections. In an ideal world the factory owner recognizes that he and the workers have a common interest in the enterprise and that maximizing his wealth by minimizing theirs is irrational. That you should find a way to make them choose to work in your factory rather than paying them in scrip and putting them so in debt that they can’t afford to quit. But in a world where a factory owner is acting irrationally and antisocially it has always been necessary for someone to remind the factory owner that there are a lot of workers who love their families and would do anything to protect their families from someone harming them and that the workers know where he lives. That it would be a terrible shame if something were to happen to his mansion.
It’s the same as my theory about judges openly taking bribes. In theory we should all respect the rule of law and accept the results of verdicts we disagree with because the system depends on people being willing to say “I don’t like the outcome but I believe in the system”. But when the judges themselves openly shit on the system then the contract is broken, there is no obligation to follow it. No rational judge would break it because they derive their position from the system but we do not live in rational times.
The main reason to not run a company that takes money from sick people for medicine and then doesn’t give people medicine is that it’s wrong. Even if not giving sick people medicine would maximize shareholder value. Everyone should know that, nobody should do it. But in an irrational world there’s a second reason not to run a company like that and it’s that you might get shot.
Or consider taxes. The rich are literally no longer required to pay them. The poor get taxes taken out of their paycheck and the payroll system reports their earnings directly to the IRS. The rich have always been on the trust system because the IRS needs them to self report.
IRS revenue agents don’t punish anyone, they don’t make up new tax laws to steal from the rich, they just find rich people who are shifting their tax burden of millions to the poor and make them stop. People who are breaking the law. During the IRS layoffs I read a lot of stories from other accountants of what they were working on on the day they were told not to go to work anymore. The richest Americans simply not paying what they were owed in the hope that they wouldn’t get caught. They were caught and then Trump decided to just let them all off. No enforcement agents, no enforcement.
In that scenario why should anyone pay taxes? Rationally we should all pay what we owe but the contract has been broken.
|
United States42655 Posts
There are rules for a civil society. I don’t disagree with the rules, I think they should be followed in a civil society. I wish I lived in a civil society.
|
On May 27 2025 22:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 22:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 27 2025 22:05 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 15:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
In general, I think vandalism is very counter-productive - I think maybe you can make an exception for something like the MLK-assassination-riots, but the normal reaction I see is that people become less sympathetic and that the chance of a political win dwindles, although here you could also argue, I guess, that riots are also more likely to happen where the chance of a political win was small in the first place. Vandalizing in general, sure. Targeted vandalism in a way that directly hurts the wealth of a drug addict mentally unstable oligarch who is openly using that wealth to control the media to push pro-Nazi views and who is seizing control of parts of our government, that's smart, healthy, patriotic, and necessary. If people had started doing it a few years ago then the Tesla stock price drops and he can't buy Twitter on credit using Tesla stock as collateral. To what degree can you really attribute Tesla's drop in stock price to vandalism? The reason I'm asking is that in Europe, I haven't really heard of any tesla-targeting vandalism, but I believe sales have tanked harder over here; the people who like EV's and the people who like Trump or are nazis are two groups with very little overlap. Additionally I can totally picture some people being like 'god damnit crime is out of control we need stronger police presence' as a response to 'somebody fucking lit my car on fire'. I’m not talking about a current Tesla price drop or current vandalism. I’m talking about the impact of a hypothetical sustained popular campaign far larger than that. Doesn’t even have to be vandalism, people can engage at their own level of radicalization. You see a Tesla charging in public, you unplug it. You park so closely behind them they can’t get out. Whatever. The public have always been able to use negative social pressure to reinforce why not to act in certain ways. They’re already doing the stronger police presence and they’re already grabbing people off the street. I’ve always thought of you as a reasonable rational man but we do not live in reasonable rational times. If the world was filled with people like you then it wouldn’t be necessary but it isn’t. Politically motivated violence has always been necessary to deal with bad actors who don’t understand that the social contract comes with obligations in addition to protections. In an ideal world the factory owner recognizes that he and the workers have a common interest in the enterprise and that maximizing his wealth by minimizing theirs is irrational. That you should find a way to make them choose to work in your factory rather than paying them in scrip and putting them so in debt that they can’t afford to quit. But in a world where a factory owner is acting irrationally and antisocially it has always been necessary for someone to remind the factory owner that there are a lot of workers who love their families and would do anything to protect their families from someone harming them and that the workers know where he lives. That it would be a terrible shame if something were to happen to his mansion. It’s the same as my theory about judges openly taking bribes. In theory we should all respect the rule of law and accept the results of verdicts we disagree with because the system depends on people being willing to say “I don’t like the outcome but I believe in the system”. But when the judges themselves openly shit on the system then the contract is broken, there is no obligation to follow it. No rational judge would break it because they derive their position from the system but we do not live in rational times. The main reason to not run a company that takes money from sick people for medicine and then doesn’t give people medicine is that it’s wrong. Even if not giving sick people medicine would maximize shareholder value. Everyone should know that, nobody should do it. But in an irrational world there’s a second reason not to run a company like that and it’s that you might get shot. Or consider taxes. The rich are literally no longer required to pay them. The poor get taxes taken out of their paycheck and the payroll system reports their earnings directly to the IRS. The rich have always been on the trust system because the IRS needs them to self report. IRS revenue agents don’t punish anyone, they don’t make up new tax laws to steal from the rich, they just find rich people who are shifting their tax burden of millions to the poor and make them stop. People who are breaking the law. During the IRS layoffs I read a lot of stories from other accountants of what they were working on on the day they were told not to go to work anymore. The richest Americans simply not paying what they were owed in the hope that they wouldn’t get caught. They were caught and then Trump decided to just let them all off. No enforcement agents, no enforcement. In that scenario why should anyone pay taxes? Rationally we should all pay what we owe but the contract has been broken.
Kwark on top of being smart it seems like you now also understood what GH was explaining ad nauseum - that system cannot be fixed from inside the system. Thats why Trump election was necessary - to show people that voting doesnt change anything ( I mean you cant get more of an outside establishment candidate than Trump and still him getting elected didnt really change anyting).
|
Well, you could get an outside candidate that isn't a corrupt, criminal, vile, disgusting piece of shit.
The big idea would be to vote for halfway decent people and see where that brings us. Voting for "burn everything down" and then using "everythign is burning" as proof that the system doesn't work isn't very logical.
|
United States42655 Posts
On May 27 2025 23:14 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 22:53 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 22:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 27 2025 22:05 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 15:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
In general, I think vandalism is very counter-productive - I think maybe you can make an exception for something like the MLK-assassination-riots, but the normal reaction I see is that people become less sympathetic and that the chance of a political win dwindles, although here you could also argue, I guess, that riots are also more likely to happen where the chance of a political win was small in the first place. Vandalizing in general, sure. Targeted vandalism in a way that directly hurts the wealth of a drug addict mentally unstable oligarch who is openly using that wealth to control the media to push pro-Nazi views and who is seizing control of parts of our government, that's smart, healthy, patriotic, and necessary. If people had started doing it a few years ago then the Tesla stock price drops and he can't buy Twitter on credit using Tesla stock as collateral. To what degree can you really attribute Tesla's drop in stock price to vandalism? The reason I'm asking is that in Europe, I haven't really heard of any tesla-targeting vandalism, but I believe sales have tanked harder over here; the people who like EV's and the people who like Trump or are nazis are two groups with very little overlap. Additionally I can totally picture some people being like 'god damnit crime is out of control we need stronger police presence' as a response to 'somebody fucking lit my car on fire'. I’m not talking about a current Tesla price drop or current vandalism. I’m talking about the impact of a hypothetical sustained popular campaign far larger than that. Doesn’t even have to be vandalism, people can engage at their own level of radicalization. You see a Tesla charging in public, you unplug it. You park so closely behind them they can’t get out. Whatever. The public have always been able to use negative social pressure to reinforce why not to act in certain ways. They’re already doing the stronger police presence and they’re already grabbing people off the street. I’ve always thought of you as a reasonable rational man but we do not live in reasonable rational times. If the world was filled with people like you then it wouldn’t be necessary but it isn’t. Politically motivated violence has always been necessary to deal with bad actors who don’t understand that the social contract comes with obligations in addition to protections. In an ideal world the factory owner recognizes that he and the workers have a common interest in the enterprise and that maximizing his wealth by minimizing theirs is irrational. That you should find a way to make them choose to work in your factory rather than paying them in scrip and putting them so in debt that they can’t afford to quit. But in a world where a factory owner is acting irrationally and antisocially it has always been necessary for someone to remind the factory owner that there are a lot of workers who love their families and would do anything to protect their families from someone harming them and that the workers know where he lives. That it would be a terrible shame if something were to happen to his mansion. It’s the same as my theory about judges openly taking bribes. In theory we should all respect the rule of law and accept the results of verdicts we disagree with because the system depends on people being willing to say “I don’t like the outcome but I believe in the system”. But when the judges themselves openly shit on the system then the contract is broken, there is no obligation to follow it. No rational judge would break it because they derive their position from the system but we do not live in rational times. The main reason to not run a company that takes money from sick people for medicine and then doesn’t give people medicine is that it’s wrong. Even if not giving sick people medicine would maximize shareholder value. Everyone should know that, nobody should do it. But in an irrational world there’s a second reason not to run a company like that and it’s that you might get shot. Or consider taxes. The rich are literally no longer required to pay them. The poor get taxes taken out of their paycheck and the payroll system reports their earnings directly to the IRS. The rich have always been on the trust system because the IRS needs them to self report. IRS revenue agents don’t punish anyone, they don’t make up new tax laws to steal from the rich, they just find rich people who are shifting their tax burden of millions to the poor and make them stop. People who are breaking the law. During the IRS layoffs I read a lot of stories from other accountants of what they were working on on the day they were told not to go to work anymore. The richest Americans simply not paying what they were owed in the hope that they wouldn’t get caught. They were caught and then Trump decided to just let them all off. No enforcement agents, no enforcement. In that scenario why should anyone pay taxes? Rationally we should all pay what we owe but the contract has been broken. Kwark on top of being smart it seems like you now also understood what GH was explaining ad nauseum - that system cannot be fixed from inside the system. Thats why Trump election was necessary - to show people that voting doesnt change anything ( I mean you cant get more of an outside establishment candidate than Trump and still him getting elected didnt really change anyting).
My arguments with GH come down to a few key issues (in the original draft this said two issues but it turns out I really don't like GH)
1. He's insufferably dense.
2. He's terminally online. It's like if left wing zoomer tik tok revolution wished to be a real boy.
3. His debate style is mostly to just make up a position and ascribe it to the other party. Presumably he knows that the other party knows that they don't have that position but he still thinks that it'll work somehow.
4. He literally doesn't understand how the simple plurality electoral system game theory works.
5. He refuses to learn.
6. He's roleplaying a revolutionary online in a way that is utterly contemptible to me. I've repeatedly asked him what, if any, direct action he actually supports and he won't endorse so much as returning a library book late. It's about as dumb as 2010 era facebook posts reading "if this post gets 1000 likes then homelessness is over". When the topic of a general strike last came up his plan for one was that people sign up on a website because if enough people sign up on a website then socialism. That was literally it. As if general strikes aren't things that have happened in the past that can be looked at to see what worked and why.
7. He's a tankie and all tankies, without exception, are scum.
8. He has no answer to how a revolution makes anything better. He can't even describe what things look like after his revolution. He can't describe his ideal end state, let alone lay out a path for getting there. He has no answer for how to avoid the pitfalls of previous revolutions that were usurped by totalitarians. He has put literally zero thought into any of the actual questions that go with a revolution and simply ignores those issues when called out.
I can be aligned with GH on the need for direct action and still find him contemptible.
Also voting absolutely changes things. Voting is how we fucking got here. If your conclusion from the election of Trump is that voting doesn't matter then I genuinely can't even with you.
|
@Razyda
People knew what Project2025 was about, that Trump was going to allow it to happen and they didn't stood up to vote for Harris anyway.
If we had president Harris, there won't be a needless trade war thats basicly Trumps way of getting his face on TV, and isn't really a trade war, but a problem he creates, and uncreates and gets praised for.
There would be a diplomatic fallout over gaza. Ukraine would not have to plan for contingencies w/o US help.
The federal government Orgs wouldn't be in shambles, the deficit Trump has racked up with "savings" would be smaller (each 0.1% to the 20 year bond is MEGA expensive.. he brought them up by 1%...despite also crashing the stock markets what a dumb fuck)
|
On May 27 2025 23:14 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 22:53 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 22:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 27 2025 22:05 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 15:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
In general, I think vandalism is very counter-productive - I think maybe you can make an exception for something like the MLK-assassination-riots, but the normal reaction I see is that people become less sympathetic and that the chance of a political win dwindles, although here you could also argue, I guess, that riots are also more likely to happen where the chance of a political win was small in the first place. Vandalizing in general, sure. Targeted vandalism in a way that directly hurts the wealth of a drug addict mentally unstable oligarch who is openly using that wealth to control the media to push pro-Nazi views and who is seizing control of parts of our government, that's smart, healthy, patriotic, and necessary. If people had started doing it a few years ago then the Tesla stock price drops and he can't buy Twitter on credit using Tesla stock as collateral. To what degree can you really attribute Tesla's drop in stock price to vandalism? The reason I'm asking is that in Europe, I haven't really heard of any tesla-targeting vandalism, but I believe sales have tanked harder over here; the people who like EV's and the people who like Trump or are nazis are two groups with very little overlap. Additionally I can totally picture some people being like 'god damnit crime is out of control we need stronger police presence' as a response to 'somebody fucking lit my car on fire'. I’m not talking about a current Tesla price drop or current vandalism. I’m talking about the impact of a hypothetical sustained popular campaign far larger than that. Doesn’t even have to be vandalism, people can engage at their own level of radicalization. You see a Tesla charging in public, you unplug it. You park so closely behind them they can’t get out. Whatever. The public have always been able to use negative social pressure to reinforce why not to act in certain ways. They’re already doing the stronger police presence and they’re already grabbing people off the street. I’ve always thought of you as a reasonable rational man but we do not live in reasonable rational times. If the world was filled with people like you then it wouldn’t be necessary but it isn’t. Politically motivated violence has always been necessary to deal with bad actors who don’t understand that the social contract comes with obligations in addition to protections. In an ideal world the factory owner recognizes that he and the workers have a common interest in the enterprise and that maximizing his wealth by minimizing theirs is irrational. That you should find a way to make them choose to work in your factory rather than paying them in scrip and putting them so in debt that they can’t afford to quit. But in a world where a factory owner is acting irrationally and antisocially it has always been necessary for someone to remind the factory owner that there are a lot of workers who love their families and would do anything to protect their families from someone harming them and that the workers know where he lives. That it would be a terrible shame if something were to happen to his mansion. It’s the same as my theory about judges openly taking bribes. In theory we should all respect the rule of law and accept the results of verdicts we disagree with because the system depends on people being willing to say “I don’t like the outcome but I believe in the system”. But when the judges themselves openly shit on the system then the contract is broken, there is no obligation to follow it. No rational judge would break it because they derive their position from the system but we do not live in rational times. The main reason to not run a company that takes money from sick people for medicine and then doesn’t give people medicine is that it’s wrong. Even if not giving sick people medicine would maximize shareholder value. Everyone should know that, nobody should do it. But in an irrational world there’s a second reason not to run a company like that and it’s that you might get shot. Or consider taxes. The rich are literally no longer required to pay them. The poor get taxes taken out of their paycheck and the payroll system reports their earnings directly to the IRS. The rich have always been on the trust system because the IRS needs them to self report. IRS revenue agents don’t punish anyone, they don’t make up new tax laws to steal from the rich, they just find rich people who are shifting their tax burden of millions to the poor and make them stop. People who are breaking the law. During the IRS layoffs I read a lot of stories from other accountants of what they were working on on the day they were told not to go to work anymore. The richest Americans simply not paying what they were owed in the hope that they wouldn’t get caught. They were caught and then Trump decided to just let them all off. No enforcement agents, no enforcement. In that scenario why should anyone pay taxes? Rationally we should all pay what we owe but the contract has been broken. Kwark on top of being smart it seems like you now also understood what GH was explaining ad nauseum - that system cannot be fixed from inside the system. Thats why Trump election was necessary - to show people that voting doesnt change anything ( I mean you cant get more of an outside establishment candidate than Trump and still him getting elected didnt really change anyting).
Electing Trump does seem to change quite a lot of things. It just all changed for the worse.
|
On May 27 2025 23:14 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 22:53 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 22:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 27 2025 22:05 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 15:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
In general, I think vandalism is very counter-productive - I think maybe you can make an exception for something like the MLK-assassination-riots, but the normal reaction I see is that people become less sympathetic and that the chance of a political win dwindles, although here you could also argue, I guess, that riots are also more likely to happen where the chance of a political win was small in the first place. Vandalizing in general, sure. Targeted vandalism in a way that directly hurts the wealth of a drug addict mentally unstable oligarch who is openly using that wealth to control the media to push pro-Nazi views and who is seizing control of parts of our government, that's smart, healthy, patriotic, and necessary. If people had started doing it a few years ago then the Tesla stock price drops and he can't buy Twitter on credit using Tesla stock as collateral. To what degree can you really attribute Tesla's drop in stock price to vandalism? The reason I'm asking is that in Europe, I haven't really heard of any tesla-targeting vandalism, but I believe sales have tanked harder over here; the people who like EV's and the people who like Trump or are nazis are two groups with very little overlap. Additionally I can totally picture some people being like 'god damnit crime is out of control we need stronger police presence' as a response to 'somebody fucking lit my car on fire'. I’m not talking about a current Tesla price drop or current vandalism. I’m talking about the impact of a hypothetical sustained popular campaign far larger than that. Doesn’t even have to be vandalism, people can engage at their own level of radicalization. You see a Tesla charging in public, you unplug it. You park so closely behind them they can’t get out. Whatever. The public have always been able to use negative social pressure to reinforce why not to act in certain ways. They’re already doing the stronger police presence and they’re already grabbing people off the street. I’ve always thought of you as a reasonable rational man but we do not live in reasonable rational times. If the world was filled with people like you then it wouldn’t be necessary but it isn’t. Politically motivated violence has always been necessary to deal with bad actors who don’t understand that the social contract comes with obligations in addition to protections. In an ideal world the factory owner recognizes that he and the workers have a common interest in the enterprise and that maximizing his wealth by minimizing theirs is irrational. That you should find a way to make them choose to work in your factory rather than paying them in scrip and putting them so in debt that they can’t afford to quit. But in a world where a factory owner is acting irrationally and antisocially it has always been necessary for someone to remind the factory owner that there are a lot of workers who love their families and would do anything to protect their families from someone harming them and that the workers know where he lives. That it would be a terrible shame if something were to happen to his mansion. It’s the same as my theory about judges openly taking bribes. In theory we should all respect the rule of law and accept the results of verdicts we disagree with because the system depends on people being willing to say “I don’t like the outcome but I believe in the system”. But when the judges themselves openly shit on the system then the contract is broken, there is no obligation to follow it. No rational judge would break it because they derive their position from the system but we do not live in rational times. The main reason to not run a company that takes money from sick people for medicine and then doesn’t give people medicine is that it’s wrong. Even if not giving sick people medicine would maximize shareholder value. Everyone should know that, nobody should do it. But in an irrational world there’s a second reason not to run a company like that and it’s that you might get shot. Or consider taxes. The rich are literally no longer required to pay them. The poor get taxes taken out of their paycheck and the payroll system reports their earnings directly to the IRS. The rich have always been on the trust system because the IRS needs them to self report. IRS revenue agents don’t punish anyone, they don’t make up new tax laws to steal from the rich, they just find rich people who are shifting their tax burden of millions to the poor and make them stop. People who are breaking the law. During the IRS layoffs I read a lot of stories from other accountants of what they were working on on the day they were told not to go to work anymore. The richest Americans simply not paying what they were owed in the hope that they wouldn’t get caught. They were caught and then Trump decided to just let them all off. No enforcement agents, no enforcement. In that scenario why should anyone pay taxes? Rationally we should all pay what we owe but the contract has been broken. Kwark on top of being smart it seems like you now also understood what GH was explaining ad nauseum - that system cannot be fixed from inside the system. Thats why Trump election was necessary - to show people that voting doesnt change anything ( I mean you cant get more of an outside establishment candidate than Trump and still him getting elected didnt really change anyting). Trumps election did nothing? The economy cratered, tourism is in the dump, ports are empty, the largest data breach in history, foreign students are being thrown out of the country because they have the wrong opinion, us citizens are getting deported.
How could I forget, the US credit rating got downgraded for the first time in history. Trump himself, single handedly got the worlds most stable, safe economy, the reserve currency of the world, downgraded. A concept that was utterly unthinkable even just a year ago.
Sure, nothing has changed.
|
On May 27 2025 23:14 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 22:53 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 22:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 27 2025 22:05 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 15:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
In general, I think vandalism is very counter-productive - I think maybe you can make an exception for something like the MLK-assassination-riots, but the normal reaction I see is that people become less sympathetic and that the chance of a political win dwindles, although here you could also argue, I guess, that riots are also more likely to happen where the chance of a political win was small in the first place. Vandalizing in general, sure. Targeted vandalism in a way that directly hurts the wealth of a drug addict mentally unstable oligarch who is openly using that wealth to control the media to push pro-Nazi views and who is seizing control of parts of our government, that's smart, healthy, patriotic, and necessary. If people had started doing it a few years ago then the Tesla stock price drops and he can't buy Twitter on credit using Tesla stock as collateral. To what degree can you really attribute Tesla's drop in stock price to vandalism? The reason I'm asking is that in Europe, I haven't really heard of any tesla-targeting vandalism, but I believe sales have tanked harder over here; the people who like EV's and the people who like Trump or are nazis are two groups with very little overlap. Additionally I can totally picture some people being like 'god damnit crime is out of control we need stronger police presence' as a response to 'somebody fucking lit my car on fire'. I’m not talking about a current Tesla price drop or current vandalism. I’m talking about the impact of a hypothetical sustained popular campaign far larger than that. Doesn’t even have to be vandalism, people can engage at their own level of radicalization. You see a Tesla charging in public, you unplug it. You park so closely behind them they can’t get out. Whatever. The public have always been able to use negative social pressure to reinforce why not to act in certain ways. They’re already doing the stronger police presence and they’re already grabbing people off the street. I’ve always thought of you as a reasonable rational man but we do not live in reasonable rational times. If the world was filled with people like you then it wouldn’t be necessary but it isn’t. Politically motivated violence has always been necessary to deal with bad actors who don’t understand that the social contract comes with obligations in addition to protections. In an ideal world the factory owner recognizes that he and the workers have a common interest in the enterprise and that maximizing his wealth by minimizing theirs is irrational. That you should find a way to make them choose to work in your factory rather than paying them in scrip and putting them so in debt that they can’t afford to quit. But in a world where a factory owner is acting irrationally and antisocially it has always been necessary for someone to remind the factory owner that there are a lot of workers who love their families and would do anything to protect their families from someone harming them and that the workers know where he lives. That it would be a terrible shame if something were to happen to his mansion. It’s the same as my theory about judges openly taking bribes. In theory we should all respect the rule of law and accept the results of verdicts we disagree with because the system depends on people being willing to say “I don’t like the outcome but I believe in the system”. But when the judges themselves openly shit on the system then the contract is broken, there is no obligation to follow it. No rational judge would break it because they derive their position from the system but we do not live in rational times. The main reason to not run a company that takes money from sick people for medicine and then doesn’t give people medicine is that it’s wrong. Even if not giving sick people medicine would maximize shareholder value. Everyone should know that, nobody should do it. But in an irrational world there’s a second reason not to run a company like that and it’s that you might get shot. Or consider taxes. The rich are literally no longer required to pay them. The poor get taxes taken out of their paycheck and the payroll system reports their earnings directly to the IRS. The rich have always been on the trust system because the IRS needs them to self report. IRS revenue agents don’t punish anyone, they don’t make up new tax laws to steal from the rich, they just find rich people who are shifting their tax burden of millions to the poor and make them stop. People who are breaking the law. During the IRS layoffs I read a lot of stories from other accountants of what they were working on on the day they were told not to go to work anymore. The richest Americans simply not paying what they were owed in the hope that they wouldn’t get caught. They were caught and then Trump decided to just let them all off. No enforcement agents, no enforcement. In that scenario why should anyone pay taxes? Rationally we should all pay what we owe but the contract has been broken. Kwark on top of being smart it seems like you now also understood what GH was explaining ad nauseum - that system cannot be fixed from inside the system. Thats why Trump election was necessary - to show people that voting doesnt change anything ( I mean you cant get more of an outside establishment candidate than Trump and still him getting elected didnt really change anyting).
Tell that to my fellow american scientists.
I will give Trump this: no other president has done more to eliminate American exceptionalism.
|
On May 27 2025 23:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 23:14 Razyda wrote:On May 27 2025 22:53 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 22:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 27 2025 22:05 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 15:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
In general, I think vandalism is very counter-productive - I think maybe you can make an exception for something like the MLK-assassination-riots, but the normal reaction I see is that people become less sympathetic and that the chance of a political win dwindles, although here you could also argue, I guess, that riots are also more likely to happen where the chance of a political win was small in the first place. Vandalizing in general, sure. Targeted vandalism in a way that directly hurts the wealth of a drug addict mentally unstable oligarch who is openly using that wealth to control the media to push pro-Nazi views and who is seizing control of parts of our government, that's smart, healthy, patriotic, and necessary. If people had started doing it a few years ago then the Tesla stock price drops and he can't buy Twitter on credit using Tesla stock as collateral. To what degree can you really attribute Tesla's drop in stock price to vandalism? The reason I'm asking is that in Europe, I haven't really heard of any tesla-targeting vandalism, but I believe sales have tanked harder over here; the people who like EV's and the people who like Trump or are nazis are two groups with very little overlap. Additionally I can totally picture some people being like 'god damnit crime is out of control we need stronger police presence' as a response to 'somebody fucking lit my car on fire'. I’m not talking about a current Tesla price drop or current vandalism. I’m talking about the impact of a hypothetical sustained popular campaign far larger than that. Doesn’t even have to be vandalism, people can engage at their own level of radicalization. You see a Tesla charging in public, you unplug it. You park so closely behind them they can’t get out. Whatever. The public have always been able to use negative social pressure to reinforce why not to act in certain ways. They’re already doing the stronger police presence and they’re already grabbing people off the street. I’ve always thought of you as a reasonable rational man but we do not live in reasonable rational times. If the world was filled with people like you then it wouldn’t be necessary but it isn’t. Politically motivated violence has always been necessary to deal with bad actors who don’t understand that the social contract comes with obligations in addition to protections. In an ideal world the factory owner recognizes that he and the workers have a common interest in the enterprise and that maximizing his wealth by minimizing theirs is irrational. That you should find a way to make them choose to work in your factory rather than paying them in scrip and putting them so in debt that they can’t afford to quit. But in a world where a factory owner is acting irrationally and antisocially it has always been necessary for someone to remind the factory owner that there are a lot of workers who love their families and would do anything to protect their families from someone harming them and that the workers know where he lives. That it would be a terrible shame if something were to happen to his mansion. It’s the same as my theory about judges openly taking bribes. In theory we should all respect the rule of law and accept the results of verdicts we disagree with because the system depends on people being willing to say “I don’t like the outcome but I believe in the system”. But when the judges themselves openly shit on the system then the contract is broken, there is no obligation to follow it. No rational judge would break it because they derive their position from the system but we do not live in rational times. The main reason to not run a company that takes money from sick people for medicine and then doesn’t give people medicine is that it’s wrong. Even if not giving sick people medicine would maximize shareholder value. Everyone should know that, nobody should do it. But in an irrational world there’s a second reason not to run a company like that and it’s that you might get shot. Or consider taxes. The rich are literally no longer required to pay them. The poor get taxes taken out of their paycheck and the payroll system reports their earnings directly to the IRS. The rich have always been on the trust system because the IRS needs them to self report. IRS revenue agents don’t punish anyone, they don’t make up new tax laws to steal from the rich, they just find rich people who are shifting their tax burden of millions to the poor and make them stop. People who are breaking the law. During the IRS layoffs I read a lot of stories from other accountants of what they were working on on the day they were told not to go to work anymore. The richest Americans simply not paying what they were owed in the hope that they wouldn’t get caught. They were caught and then Trump decided to just let them all off. No enforcement agents, no enforcement. In that scenario why should anyone pay taxes? Rationally we should all pay what we owe but the contract has been broken. Kwark on top of being smart it seems like you now also understood what GH was explaining ad nauseum - that system cannot be fixed from inside the system. Thats why Trump election was necessary - to show people that voting doesnt change anything ( I mean you cant get more of an outside establishment candidate than Trump and still him getting elected didnt really change anyting). My arguments with GH come down to a few key issues (in the original draft this said two issues but it turns out I really don't like GH) + Show Spoiler +1. He's insufferably dense.
2. He's terminally online. It's like if left wing zoomer tik tok revolution wished to be a real boy.
3. His debate style is mostly to just make up a position and ascribe it to the other party. Presumably he knows that the other party knows that they don't have that position but he still thinks that it'll work somehow.
4. He literally doesn't understand how the simple plurality electoral system game theory works.
5. He refuses to learn.
6. He's roleplaying a revolutionary online in a way that is utterly contemptible to me. I've repeatedly asked him what, if any, direct action he actually supports and he won't endorse so much as returning a library book late. It's about as dumb as 2010 era facebook posts reading "if this post gets 1000 likes then homelessness is over". When the topic of a general strike last came up his plan for one was that people sign up on a website because if enough people sign up on a website then socialism. That was literally it. As if general strikes aren't things that have happened in the past that can be looked at to see what worked and why.
7. He's a tankie and all tankies, without exception, are scum.
8. He has no answer to how a revolution makes anything better. He can't even describe what things look like after his revolution. He can't describe his ideal end state, let alone lay out a path for getting there. He has no answer for how to avoid the pitfalls of previous revolutions that were usurped by totalitarians. He has put literally zero thought into any of the actual questions that go with a revolution and simply ignores those issues when called out. I can be aligned with GH on the need for direct action and still find him contemptible. + Show Spoiler +Also voting absolutely changes things. Voting is how we fucking got here. If your conclusion from the election of Trump is that voting doesn't matter then I genuinely can't even with you.
This is the emotionally lashing out at realizing I'm right that happens a lot.
I forgive you Kwark.
|
United States42655 Posts
On May 28 2025 00:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 23:34 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 23:14 Razyda wrote:On May 27 2025 22:53 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 22:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 27 2025 22:05 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 15:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
In general, I think vandalism is very counter-productive - I think maybe you can make an exception for something like the MLK-assassination-riots, but the normal reaction I see is that people become less sympathetic and that the chance of a political win dwindles, although here you could also argue, I guess, that riots are also more likely to happen where the chance of a political win was small in the first place. Vandalizing in general, sure. Targeted vandalism in a way that directly hurts the wealth of a drug addict mentally unstable oligarch who is openly using that wealth to control the media to push pro-Nazi views and who is seizing control of parts of our government, that's smart, healthy, patriotic, and necessary. If people had started doing it a few years ago then the Tesla stock price drops and he can't buy Twitter on credit using Tesla stock as collateral. To what degree can you really attribute Tesla's drop in stock price to vandalism? The reason I'm asking is that in Europe, I haven't really heard of any tesla-targeting vandalism, but I believe sales have tanked harder over here; the people who like EV's and the people who like Trump or are nazis are two groups with very little overlap. Additionally I can totally picture some people being like 'god damnit crime is out of control we need stronger police presence' as a response to 'somebody fucking lit my car on fire'. I’m not talking about a current Tesla price drop or current vandalism. I’m talking about the impact of a hypothetical sustained popular campaign far larger than that. Doesn’t even have to be vandalism, people can engage at their own level of radicalization. You see a Tesla charging in public, you unplug it. You park so closely behind them they can’t get out. Whatever. The public have always been able to use negative social pressure to reinforce why not to act in certain ways. They’re already doing the stronger police presence and they’re already grabbing people off the street. I’ve always thought of you as a reasonable rational man but we do not live in reasonable rational times. If the world was filled with people like you then it wouldn’t be necessary but it isn’t. Politically motivated violence has always been necessary to deal with bad actors who don’t understand that the social contract comes with obligations in addition to protections. In an ideal world the factory owner recognizes that he and the workers have a common interest in the enterprise and that maximizing his wealth by minimizing theirs is irrational. That you should find a way to make them choose to work in your factory rather than paying them in scrip and putting them so in debt that they can’t afford to quit. But in a world where a factory owner is acting irrationally and antisocially it has always been necessary for someone to remind the factory owner that there are a lot of workers who love their families and would do anything to protect their families from someone harming them and that the workers know where he lives. That it would be a terrible shame if something were to happen to his mansion. It’s the same as my theory about judges openly taking bribes. In theory we should all respect the rule of law and accept the results of verdicts we disagree with because the system depends on people being willing to say “I don’t like the outcome but I believe in the system”. But when the judges themselves openly shit on the system then the contract is broken, there is no obligation to follow it. No rational judge would break it because they derive their position from the system but we do not live in rational times. The main reason to not run a company that takes money from sick people for medicine and then doesn’t give people medicine is that it’s wrong. Even if not giving sick people medicine would maximize shareholder value. Everyone should know that, nobody should do it. But in an irrational world there’s a second reason not to run a company like that and it’s that you might get shot. Or consider taxes. The rich are literally no longer required to pay them. The poor get taxes taken out of their paycheck and the payroll system reports their earnings directly to the IRS. The rich have always been on the trust system because the IRS needs them to self report. IRS revenue agents don’t punish anyone, they don’t make up new tax laws to steal from the rich, they just find rich people who are shifting their tax burden of millions to the poor and make them stop. People who are breaking the law. During the IRS layoffs I read a lot of stories from other accountants of what they were working on on the day they were told not to go to work anymore. The richest Americans simply not paying what they were owed in the hope that they wouldn’t get caught. They were caught and then Trump decided to just let them all off. No enforcement agents, no enforcement. In that scenario why should anyone pay taxes? Rationally we should all pay what we owe but the contract has been broken. Kwark on top of being smart it seems like you now also understood what GH was explaining ad nauseum - that system cannot be fixed from inside the system. Thats why Trump election was necessary - to show people that voting doesnt change anything ( I mean you cant get more of an outside establishment candidate than Trump and still him getting elected didnt really change anyting). My arguments with GH come down to a few key issues (in the original draft this said two issues but it turns out I really don't like GH) + Show Spoiler +1. He's insufferably dense.
2. He's terminally online. It's like if left wing zoomer tik tok revolution wished to be a real boy.
3. His debate style is mostly to just make up a position and ascribe it to the other party. Presumably he knows that the other party knows that they don't have that position but he still thinks that it'll work somehow.
4. He literally doesn't understand how the simple plurality electoral system game theory works.
5. He refuses to learn.
6. He's roleplaying a revolutionary online in a way that is utterly contemptible to me. I've repeatedly asked him what, if any, direct action he actually supports and he won't endorse so much as returning a library book late. It's about as dumb as 2010 era facebook posts reading "if this post gets 1000 likes then homelessness is over". When the topic of a general strike last came up his plan for one was that people sign up on a website because if enough people sign up on a website then socialism. That was literally it. As if general strikes aren't things that have happened in the past that can be looked at to see what worked and why.
7. He's a tankie and all tankies, without exception, are scum.
8. He has no answer to how a revolution makes anything better. He can't even describe what things look like after his revolution. He can't describe his ideal end state, let alone lay out a path for getting there. He has no answer for how to avoid the pitfalls of previous revolutions that were usurped by totalitarians. He has put literally zero thought into any of the actual questions that go with a revolution and simply ignores those issues when called out. I can be aligned with GH on the need for direct action and still find him contemptible. + Show Spoiler +Also voting absolutely changes things. Voting is how we fucking got here. If your conclusion from the election of Trump is that voting doesn't matter then I genuinely can't even with you. This is the emotionally lashing out at realizing I'm right that happens a lot. I forgive you Kwark.
Did the revolution get enough likes on facebook yet?
|
Northern Ireland25243 Posts
On May 27 2025 22:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 22:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 27 2025 22:05 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 15:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
In general, I think vandalism is very counter-productive - I think maybe you can make an exception for something like the MLK-assassination-riots, but the normal reaction I see is that people become less sympathetic and that the chance of a political win dwindles, although here you could also argue, I guess, that riots are also more likely to happen where the chance of a political win was small in the first place. Vandalizing in general, sure. Targeted vandalism in a way that directly hurts the wealth of a drug addict mentally unstable oligarch who is openly using that wealth to control the media to push pro-Nazi views and who is seizing control of parts of our government, that's smart, healthy, patriotic, and necessary. If people had started doing it a few years ago then the Tesla stock price drops and he can't buy Twitter on credit using Tesla stock as collateral. To what degree can you really attribute Tesla's drop in stock price to vandalism? The reason I'm asking is that in Europe, I haven't really heard of any tesla-targeting vandalism, but I believe sales have tanked harder over here; the people who like EV's and the people who like Trump or are nazis are two groups with very little overlap. Additionally I can totally picture some people being like 'god damnit crime is out of control we need stronger police presence' as a response to 'somebody fucking lit my car on fire'. I’m not talking about a current Tesla price drop or current vandalism. I’m talking about the impact of a hypothetical sustained popular campaign far larger than that. Doesn’t even have to be vandalism, people can engage at their own level of radicalization. You see a Tesla charging in public, you unplug it. You park so closely behind them they can’t get out. Whatever. The public have always been able to use negative social pressure to reinforce why not to act in certain ways. They’re already doing the stronger police presence and they’re already grabbing people off the street. I’ve always thought of you as a reasonable rational man but we do not live in reasonable rational times. If the world was filled with people like you then it wouldn’t be necessary but it isn’t. Politically motivated violence has always been necessary to deal with bad actors who don’t understand that the social contract comes with obligations in addition to protections. In an ideal world the factory owner recognizes that he and the workers have a common interest in the enterprise and that maximizing his wealth by minimizing theirs is irrational. That you should find a way to make them choose to work in your factory rather than paying them in scrip and putting them so in debt that they can’t afford to quit. But in a world where a factory owner is acting irrationally and antisocially it has always been necessary for someone to remind the factory owner that there are a lot of workers who love their families and would do anything to protect their families from someone harming them and that the workers know where he lives. That it would be a terrible shame if something were to happen to his mansion. It’s the same as my theory about judges openly taking bribes. In theory we should all respect the rule of law and accept the results of verdicts we disagree with because the system depends on people being willing to say “I don’t like the outcome but I believe in the system”. But when the judges themselves openly shit on the system then the contract is broken, there is no obligation to follow it. No rational judge would break it because they derive their position from the system but we do not live in rational times. The main reason to not run a company that takes money from sick people for medicine and then doesn’t give people medicine is that it’s wrong. Even if not giving sick people medicine would maximize shareholder value. Everyone should know that, nobody should do it. But in an irrational world there’s a second reason not to run a company like that and it’s that you might get shot. Or consider taxes. The rich are literally no longer required to pay them. The poor get taxes taken out of their paycheck and the payroll system reports their earnings directly to the IRS. The rich have always been on the trust system because the IRS needs them to self report. IRS revenue agents don’t punish anyone, they don’t make up new tax laws to steal from the rich, they just find rich people who are shifting their tax burden of millions to the poor and make them stop. People who are breaking the law. During the IRS layoffs I read a lot of stories from other accountants of what they were working on on the day they were told not to go to work anymore. The richest Americans simply not paying what they were owed in the hope that they wouldn’t get caught. They were caught and then Trump decided to just let them all off. No enforcement agents, no enforcement. In that scenario why should anyone pay taxes? Rationally we should all pay what we owe but the contract has been broken.
I don’t disagree with that Kwark, specifically as per Tesla vandalism I’m just not convinced it’s either particularly effective versus alternatives, nor actually targeting those with particular culpability or power.
Ideally, you have both of those things, but you don’t necessarily have to. But you need at least one. You could have been a white, dedicated anti-Apartheid activist in South Africa, sucks for you to still be caught up in your nation’s international pariah status, but I think most here would consider that an acceptable casualty.
If it was not McDonald’s, my apologies to Ronald. Anyway they, or whoever it was were getting some heat for some Israeli political donations. Boycott away, or protest outside restaurants or whatever. If you were to just go full Karen on the burger flippers and make their shifts so intolerable they kept quitting, perhaps it moves the needle too but I wouldn’t be especially supportive of that. Sir, this is a Wendy’s McDonalds.
One thing about Musk is, much as he likes money, he really, really wants to be liked and have people think he’s cool. There’s another level of leverage there, and not one that every billionaire offers.
Anywhere he goes in the globe, someone should politely say ‘Oi mate, you’re a cunt’. Deny him the oxygen of publicity. The Simpsons should make a counter-episode to the godawful one he was guest on doing nothing but ripping him. Star Trek should go back and edit the cringe-inducing references to him, and replace his name with someone he really hates.
On top of plenty of other stuff, but you just know he’d be absolutely seething.
I think my main bone of contention is that social pressure absolutely works (just look at school), but it’s a matter of suitable targets. I’d feel slightly differently if Joe and Jane Tesla buyers were, by and large enthusiastic supporters of his current politics.
There’s also the negative side-effect of a misapplication of non-legal political activism, be it perceived or otherwise and it tends to further retrench people into the very shackles you’re trying to break. And those shackles of ‘free speech man, and anything outside of systemic and legal frameworks isn’t cool’ are already extremely tight.
|
On May 28 2025 00:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2025 00:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2025 23:34 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 23:14 Razyda wrote:On May 27 2025 22:53 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 22:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 27 2025 22:05 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 15:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
In general, I think vandalism is very counter-productive - I think maybe you can make an exception for something like the MLK-assassination-riots, but the normal reaction I see is that people become less sympathetic and that the chance of a political win dwindles, although here you could also argue, I guess, that riots are also more likely to happen where the chance of a political win was small in the first place. Vandalizing in general, sure. Targeted vandalism in a way that directly hurts the wealth of a drug addict mentally unstable oligarch who is openly using that wealth to control the media to push pro-Nazi views and who is seizing control of parts of our government, that's smart, healthy, patriotic, and necessary. If people had started doing it a few years ago then the Tesla stock price drops and he can't buy Twitter on credit using Tesla stock as collateral. To what degree can you really attribute Tesla's drop in stock price to vandalism? The reason I'm asking is that in Europe, I haven't really heard of any tesla-targeting vandalism, but I believe sales have tanked harder over here; the people who like EV's and the people who like Trump or are nazis are two groups with very little overlap. Additionally I can totally picture some people being like 'god damnit crime is out of control we need stronger police presence' as a response to 'somebody fucking lit my car on fire'. I’m not talking about a current Tesla price drop or current vandalism. I’m talking about the impact of a hypothetical sustained popular campaign far larger than that. Doesn’t even have to be vandalism, people can engage at their own level of radicalization. You see a Tesla charging in public, you unplug it. You park so closely behind them they can’t get out. Whatever. The public have always been able to use negative social pressure to reinforce why not to act in certain ways. They’re already doing the stronger police presence and they’re already grabbing people off the street. I’ve always thought of you as a reasonable rational man but we do not live in reasonable rational times. If the world was filled with people like you then it wouldn’t be necessary but it isn’t. Politically motivated violence has always been necessary to deal with bad actors who don’t understand that the social contract comes with obligations in addition to protections. In an ideal world the factory owner recognizes that he and the workers have a common interest in the enterprise and that maximizing his wealth by minimizing theirs is irrational. That you should find a way to make them choose to work in your factory rather than paying them in scrip and putting them so in debt that they can’t afford to quit. But in a world where a factory owner is acting irrationally and antisocially it has always been necessary for someone to remind the factory owner that there are a lot of workers who love their families and would do anything to protect their families from someone harming them and that the workers know where he lives. That it would be a terrible shame if something were to happen to his mansion. It’s the same as my theory about judges openly taking bribes. In theory we should all respect the rule of law and accept the results of verdicts we disagree with because the system depends on people being willing to say “I don’t like the outcome but I believe in the system”. But when the judges themselves openly shit on the system then the contract is broken, there is no obligation to follow it. No rational judge would break it because they derive their position from the system but we do not live in rational times. The main reason to not run a company that takes money from sick people for medicine and then doesn’t give people medicine is that it’s wrong. Even if not giving sick people medicine would maximize shareholder value. Everyone should know that, nobody should do it. But in an irrational world there’s a second reason not to run a company like that and it’s that you might get shot. Or consider taxes. The rich are literally no longer required to pay them. The poor get taxes taken out of their paycheck and the payroll system reports their earnings directly to the IRS. The rich have always been on the trust system because the IRS needs them to self report. IRS revenue agents don’t punish anyone, they don’t make up new tax laws to steal from the rich, they just find rich people who are shifting their tax burden of millions to the poor and make them stop. People who are breaking the law. During the IRS layoffs I read a lot of stories from other accountants of what they were working on on the day they were told not to go to work anymore. The richest Americans simply not paying what they were owed in the hope that they wouldn’t get caught. They were caught and then Trump decided to just let them all off. No enforcement agents, no enforcement. In that scenario why should anyone pay taxes? Rationally we should all pay what we owe but the contract has been broken. Kwark on top of being smart it seems like you now also understood what GH was explaining ad nauseum - that system cannot be fixed from inside the system. Thats why Trump election was necessary - to show people that voting doesnt change anything ( I mean you cant get more of an outside establishment candidate than Trump and still him getting elected didnt really change anyting). My arguments with GH come down to a few key issues (in the original draft this said two issues but it turns out I really don't like GH) + Show Spoiler +1. He's insufferably dense.
2. He's terminally online. It's like if left wing zoomer tik tok revolution wished to be a real boy.
3. His debate style is mostly to just make up a position and ascribe it to the other party. Presumably he knows that the other party knows that they don't have that position but he still thinks that it'll work somehow.
4. He literally doesn't understand how the simple plurality electoral system game theory works.
5. He refuses to learn.
6. He's roleplaying a revolutionary online in a way that is utterly contemptible to me. I've repeatedly asked him what, if any, direct action he actually supports and he won't endorse so much as returning a library book late. It's about as dumb as 2010 era facebook posts reading "if this post gets 1000 likes then homelessness is over". When the topic of a general strike last came up his plan for one was that people sign up on a website because if enough people sign up on a website then socialism. That was literally it. As if general strikes aren't things that have happened in the past that can be looked at to see what worked and why.
7. He's a tankie and all tankies, without exception, are scum.
8. He has no answer to how a revolution makes anything better. He can't even describe what things look like after his revolution. He can't describe his ideal end state, let alone lay out a path for getting there. He has no answer for how to avoid the pitfalls of previous revolutions that were usurped by totalitarians. He has put literally zero thought into any of the actual questions that go with a revolution and simply ignores those issues when called out. I can be aligned with GH on the need for direct action and still find him contemptible. + Show Spoiler +Also voting absolutely changes things. Voting is how we fucking got here. If your conclusion from the election of Trump is that voting doesn't matter then I genuinely can't even with you. This is the emotionally lashing out at realizing I'm right that happens a lot. I forgive you Kwark. Did the revolution get enough likes on facebook yet?
I'm not on facebook, but how's your revolution going?
|
United States42655 Posts
On May 28 2025 00:14 WombaT wrote:
There’s also the negative side-effect of a misapplication of non-legal political activism, be it perceived or otherwise and it tends to further retrench people into the very shackles you’re trying to break. And those shackles of ‘free speech man, and anything outside of systemic and legal frameworks isn’t cool’ are already extremely tight.
Those people will go along with whatever is happening. They're just not engaged so who gives a fuck what they think. They're not going to do anything when the gestapo grab their brown neighbour and they're not going to do anything when a member of the gestapo goes missing one night. It doesn't actually take a high proportion of the population to do most things, it just takes a motivated subset. Take the Tea Party, they just needed to show up to primaries when most Republicans didn't, the majority of Republicans might have preferred the mainstream candidate but they're still going to vote R when the time comes.
|
Northern Ireland25243 Posts
On May 27 2025 23:14 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 22:53 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 22:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 27 2025 22:05 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 15:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
In general, I think vandalism is very counter-productive - I think maybe you can make an exception for something like the MLK-assassination-riots, but the normal reaction I see is that people become less sympathetic and that the chance of a political win dwindles, although here you could also argue, I guess, that riots are also more likely to happen where the chance of a political win was small in the first place. Vandalizing in general, sure. Targeted vandalism in a way that directly hurts the wealth of a drug addict mentally unstable oligarch who is openly using that wealth to control the media to push pro-Nazi views and who is seizing control of parts of our government, that's smart, healthy, patriotic, and necessary. If people had started doing it a few years ago then the Tesla stock price drops and he can't buy Twitter on credit using Tesla stock as collateral. To what degree can you really attribute Tesla's drop in stock price to vandalism? The reason I'm asking is that in Europe, I haven't really heard of any tesla-targeting vandalism, but I believe sales have tanked harder over here; the people who like EV's and the people who like Trump or are nazis are two groups with very little overlap. Additionally I can totally picture some people being like 'god damnit crime is out of control we need stronger police presence' as a response to 'somebody fucking lit my car on fire'. I’m not talking about a current Tesla price drop or current vandalism. I’m talking about the impact of a hypothetical sustained popular campaign far larger than that. Doesn’t even have to be vandalism, people can engage at their own level of radicalization. You see a Tesla charging in public, you unplug it. You park so closely behind them they can’t get out. Whatever. The public have always been able to use negative social pressure to reinforce why not to act in certain ways. They’re already doing the stronger police presence and they’re already grabbing people off the street. I’ve always thought of you as a reasonable rational man but we do not live in reasonable rational times. If the world was filled with people like you then it wouldn’t be necessary but it isn’t. Politically motivated violence has always been necessary to deal with bad actors who don’t understand that the social contract comes with obligations in addition to protections. In an ideal world the factory owner recognizes that he and the workers have a common interest in the enterprise and that maximizing his wealth by minimizing theirs is irrational. That you should find a way to make them choose to work in your factory rather than paying them in scrip and putting them so in debt that they can’t afford to quit. But in a world where a factory owner is acting irrationally and antisocially it has always been necessary for someone to remind the factory owner that there are a lot of workers who love their families and would do anything to protect their families from someone harming them and that the workers know where he lives. That it would be a terrible shame if something were to happen to his mansion. It’s the same as my theory about judges openly taking bribes. In theory we should all respect the rule of law and accept the results of verdicts we disagree with because the system depends on people being willing to say “I don’t like the outcome but I believe in the system”. But when the judges themselves openly shit on the system then the contract is broken, there is no obligation to follow it. No rational judge would break it because they derive their position from the system but we do not live in rational times. The main reason to not run a company that takes money from sick people for medicine and then doesn’t give people medicine is that it’s wrong. Even if not giving sick people medicine would maximize shareholder value. Everyone should know that, nobody should do it. But in an irrational world there’s a second reason not to run a company like that and it’s that you might get shot. Or consider taxes. The rich are literally no longer required to pay them. The poor get taxes taken out of their paycheck and the payroll system reports their earnings directly to the IRS. The rich have always been on the trust system because the IRS needs them to self report. IRS revenue agents don’t punish anyone, they don’t make up new tax laws to steal from the rich, they just find rich people who are shifting their tax burden of millions to the poor and make them stop. People who are breaking the law. During the IRS layoffs I read a lot of stories from other accountants of what they were working on on the day they were told not to go to work anymore. The richest Americans simply not paying what they were owed in the hope that they wouldn’t get caught. They were caught and then Trump decided to just let them all off. No enforcement agents, no enforcement. In that scenario why should anyone pay taxes? Rationally we should all pay what we owe but the contract has been broken. Kwark on top of being smart it seems like you now also understood what GH was explaining ad nauseum - that system cannot be fixed from inside the system. Thats why Trump election was necessary - to show people that voting doesnt change anything ( I mean you cant get more of an outside establishment candidate than Trump and still him getting elected didnt really change anyting).
Trump is as establishment as it gets, structurally if not culturally. Except instead of regular corruption, you get stadium rock levels of it.
Electing Trump to showcase systemic dissatisfaction is like me being a bit annoyed at my partner, and deciding to make that point by having an affair. Sure, it does make that point but it is almost the worst possible choice in doing so.
Furthermore, you don’t have to elect him twice.
Fundamentally the problem IMO is quite the opposite of a rejection of the system. People cannot accept that this IS the system, it is doing what it will inevitably do. They like the system, they just want it rigged in their favour is all.
It’s precisely why they vote for a Fascist-adjacent authoritarian strongman conman. Who will tell them that they can deliver such a thing.
|
On May 28 2025 00:14 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 22:53 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 22:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 27 2025 22:05 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 15:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
In general, I think vandalism is very counter-productive - I think maybe you can make an exception for something like the MLK-assassination-riots, but the normal reaction I see is that people become less sympathetic and that the chance of a political win dwindles, although here you could also argue, I guess, that riots are also more likely to happen where the chance of a political win was small in the first place. Vandalizing in general, sure. Targeted vandalism in a way that directly hurts the wealth of a drug addict mentally unstable oligarch who is openly using that wealth to control the media to push pro-Nazi views and who is seizing control of parts of our government, that's smart, healthy, patriotic, and necessary. If people had started doing it a few years ago then the Tesla stock price drops and he can't buy Twitter on credit using Tesla stock as collateral. To what degree can you really attribute Tesla's drop in stock price to vandalism? The reason I'm asking is that in Europe, I haven't really heard of any tesla-targeting vandalism, but I believe sales have tanked harder over here; the people who like EV's and the people who like Trump or are nazis are two groups with very little overlap. Additionally I can totally picture some people being like 'god damnit crime is out of control we need stronger police presence' as a response to 'somebody fucking lit my car on fire'. I’m not talking about a current Tesla price drop or current vandalism. I’m talking about the impact of a hypothetical sustained popular campaign far larger than that. Doesn’t even have to be vandalism, people can engage at their own level of radicalization. You see a Tesla charging in public, you unplug it. You park so closely behind them they can’t get out. Whatever. The public have always been able to use negative social pressure to reinforce why not to act in certain ways. They’re already doing the stronger police presence and they’re already grabbing people off the street. I’ve always thought of you as a reasonable rational man but we do not live in reasonable rational times. If the world was filled with people like you then it wouldn’t be necessary but it isn’t. Politically motivated violence has always been necessary to deal with bad actors who don’t understand that the social contract comes with obligations in addition to protections. In an ideal world the factory owner recognizes that he and the workers have a common interest in the enterprise and that maximizing his wealth by minimizing theirs is irrational. That you should find a way to make them choose to work in your factory rather than paying them in scrip and putting them so in debt that they can’t afford to quit. But in a world where a factory owner is acting irrationally and antisocially it has always been necessary for someone to remind the factory owner that there are a lot of workers who love their families and would do anything to protect their families from someone harming them and that the workers know where he lives. That it would be a terrible shame if something were to happen to his mansion. It’s the same as my theory about judges openly taking bribes. In theory we should all respect the rule of law and accept the results of verdicts we disagree with because the system depends on people being willing to say “I don’t like the outcome but I believe in the system”. But when the judges themselves openly shit on the system then the contract is broken, there is no obligation to follow it. No rational judge would break it because they derive their position from the system but we do not live in rational times. The main reason to not run a company that takes money from sick people for medicine and then doesn’t give people medicine is that it’s wrong. Even if not giving sick people medicine would maximize shareholder value. Everyone should know that, nobody should do it. But in an irrational world there’s a second reason not to run a company like that and it’s that you might get shot. Or consider taxes. The rich are literally no longer required to pay them. The poor get taxes taken out of their paycheck and the payroll system reports their earnings directly to the IRS. The rich have always been on the trust system because the IRS needs them to self report. IRS revenue agents don’t punish anyone, they don’t make up new tax laws to steal from the rich, they just find rich people who are shifting their tax burden of millions to the poor and make them stop. People who are breaking the law. During the IRS layoffs I read a lot of stories from other accountants of what they were working on on the day they were told not to go to work anymore. The richest Americans simply not paying what they were owed in the hope that they wouldn’t get caught. They were caught and then Trump decided to just let them all off. No enforcement agents, no enforcement. In that scenario why should anyone pay taxes? Rationally we should all pay what we owe but the contract has been broken. I don’t disagree with that Kwark, specifically as per Tesla vandalism I’m just not convinced it’s either particularly effective versus alternatives, nor actually targeting those with particular culpability or power. … I think my main bone of contention is that social pressure absolutely works (just look at school), but it’s a matter of suitable targets. I’d feel slightly differently if Joe and Jane Tesla buyers were, by and large enthusiastic supporters of his current politics.
Sounds like you yourself have a little movement on the acceptability of torching people’s cars because they are a nazi they own a Tesla.
|
It is striking how much people who complain about echo chambers csn whip themselves into a frenzy.
Not to step into a left-wing fight here but... To me one of the biggest problems (besides the whole moral problem of doing all the stuff that you are debating the effectiveness of) is the reality of life as it was and life as it is.
First, it's not the 1890s or 1910s anymore. We don't really have things like the Triangle Factory fire or children working in mines instead of being in school. It's also not the 1960s, which Democrats in particular are hard-pressed to remember because their party leadership is so old that they have memories of it and the Nixon years. Nobody is having Pinkertons brought in to fight them and people aren't being shot with fire hoses. To repsond to the problems of today by lightning cars on fire seems, to many Americans, too extreme and is very off putting. Protesting needs the underlying injustice to be worth the protest!
Second, modern leftist as embodied by the Democratic party routinely fails in its promises. Clinton's myriad ethical problems were defended to hilt, and thus began the accelerated decline in terms of presidential behavior. Second, lies like "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" and "Obamacare will lower your premiums" demonstrated to voters to be skeptical of sweeping change (which they already were). And finally, despite all the memes about how Dems have the competent party people are moving from blue states to red ones, because people like DeSantis and Kemp run their states better than Newsom or Hochul. California is a basketcase, and you can tell because now that he wants to run for president Newsom is trying to sound like a moderate. And don't forget Biden's own problems, including most obviously his gross mishandling at the border. Now was that incompetence or a devotion to the far left open-borders types? Who knows, but it doesn't matter. Or his handling of the Afghanistan whildrawl, where his popularity really started to go underwater. (BTW it's been reported now that the military brass told him they needed more time but he insisted, so yes he can 100% be blamed.)
TL;DR the problems of the moment don't match the proposed actions of the moment, morality aside. And the only party through which this anger could be channeled is not up to the task. Perhaps people should consider that at least before punching people or lighting cars on fire.
|
Why is cheap labor that makes your for profti prisons full, and your lawn mown such a giant ass problem for americans?
|
Northern Ireland25243 Posts
On May 28 2025 01:47 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2025 00:14 WombaT wrote:On May 27 2025 22:53 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 22:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 27 2025 22:05 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2025 15:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
In general, I think vandalism is very counter-productive - I think maybe you can make an exception for something like the MLK-assassination-riots, but the normal reaction I see is that people become less sympathetic and that the chance of a political win dwindles, although here you could also argue, I guess, that riots are also more likely to happen where the chance of a political win was small in the first place. Vandalizing in general, sure. Targeted vandalism in a way that directly hurts the wealth of a drug addict mentally unstable oligarch who is openly using that wealth to control the media to push pro-Nazi views and who is seizing control of parts of our government, that's smart, healthy, patriotic, and necessary. If people had started doing it a few years ago then the Tesla stock price drops and he can't buy Twitter on credit using Tesla stock as collateral. To what degree can you really attribute Tesla's drop in stock price to vandalism? The reason I'm asking is that in Europe, I haven't really heard of any tesla-targeting vandalism, but I believe sales have tanked harder over here; the people who like EV's and the people who like Trump or are nazis are two groups with very little overlap. Additionally I can totally picture some people being like 'god damnit crime is out of control we need stronger police presence' as a response to 'somebody fucking lit my car on fire'. I’m not talking about a current Tesla price drop or current vandalism. I’m talking about the impact of a hypothetical sustained popular campaign far larger than that. Doesn’t even have to be vandalism, people can engage at their own level of radicalization. You see a Tesla charging in public, you unplug it. You park so closely behind them they can’t get out. Whatever. The public have always been able to use negative social pressure to reinforce why not to act in certain ways. They’re already doing the stronger police presence and they’re already grabbing people off the street. I’ve always thought of you as a reasonable rational man but we do not live in reasonable rational times. If the world was filled with people like you then it wouldn’t be necessary but it isn’t. Politically motivated violence has always been necessary to deal with bad actors who don’t understand that the social contract comes with obligations in addition to protections. In an ideal world the factory owner recognizes that he and the workers have a common interest in the enterprise and that maximizing his wealth by minimizing theirs is irrational. That you should find a way to make them choose to work in your factory rather than paying them in scrip and putting them so in debt that they can’t afford to quit. But in a world where a factory owner is acting irrationally and antisocially it has always been necessary for someone to remind the factory owner that there are a lot of workers who love their families and would do anything to protect their families from someone harming them and that the workers know where he lives. That it would be a terrible shame if something were to happen to his mansion. It’s the same as my theory about judges openly taking bribes. In theory we should all respect the rule of law and accept the results of verdicts we disagree with because the system depends on people being willing to say “I don’t like the outcome but I believe in the system”. But when the judges themselves openly shit on the system then the contract is broken, there is no obligation to follow it. No rational judge would break it because they derive their position from the system but we do not live in rational times. The main reason to not run a company that takes money from sick people for medicine and then doesn’t give people medicine is that it’s wrong. Even if not giving sick people medicine would maximize shareholder value. Everyone should know that, nobody should do it. But in an irrational world there’s a second reason not to run a company like that and it’s that you might get shot. Or consider taxes. The rich are literally no longer required to pay them. The poor get taxes taken out of their paycheck and the payroll system reports their earnings directly to the IRS. The rich have always been on the trust system because the IRS needs them to self report. IRS revenue agents don’t punish anyone, they don’t make up new tax laws to steal from the rich, they just find rich people who are shifting their tax burden of millions to the poor and make them stop. People who are breaking the law. During the IRS layoffs I read a lot of stories from other accountants of what they were working on on the day they were told not to go to work anymore. The richest Americans simply not paying what they were owed in the hope that they wouldn’t get caught. They were caught and then Trump decided to just let them all off. No enforcement agents, no enforcement. In that scenario why should anyone pay taxes? Rationally we should all pay what we owe but the contract has been broken. I don’t disagree with that Kwark, specifically as per Tesla vandalism I’m just not convinced it’s either particularly effective versus alternatives, nor actually targeting those with particular culpability or power. … I think my main bone of contention is that social pressure absolutely works (just look at school), but it’s a matter of suitable targets. I’d feel slightly differently if Joe and Jane Tesla buyers were, by and large enthusiastic supporters of his current politics. Sounds like you yourself have a little movement on the acceptability of torching people’s cars because they are a nazi they own a Tesla.
My position hasn’t really moved, I suppose I haven’t exhaustively laid it out or codified it. if you’re an actual Nazi you’re fair game for a punching if you’re doing that in public, especially as part of some wider gathering. Or a jihadist or whatever. Basically if you’re out advocating death to x group, in public. And that’s plan B, ideally you have a bunch of folk (or indeed law enforcement) show up and get you to fuck off.
Then it’s something of a graduating scale for me down from there. The less hateful, or public you go, deplatforming or simply being thought of as an arsehole, or boycotts or other forms of protest.
If Joe Nazi or Jane Jihadi aren’t going to rallies, or able to post their invective on mainstream, visible platforms I’m not that bothered about punching them. The idea isn’t necessarily to eliminate the poison, just contain it.
I’ve never been in favour of torching Teslas, I think it’s especially stupid because the average Tesla owner is highly likely not to hold the political views you’re trying to punish. I just don’t give that much of a shit in the wider scheme of things.
Yeah it sucks, insurance is a thing. If perpetrators get caught they’ll face criminal censure.
Meanwhile the state is deporting ‘gang members’ and revoking green cards for the ‘crime’ of completely legitimate protest.
I’m not a great believer in the idea one can’t care about multiple things at once, but if one was to pick a priority concern I know which I’d pick.
|
Northern Ireland25243 Posts
On May 28 2025 02:29 KT_Elwood wrote:
Why is cheap labor that makes your for profti prisons full, and your lawn mown such a giant ass problem for americans?
It genuinely blew my mind to discover people in the States can legitimately go to jail for having an ‘unkempt’ lawn. HOAs lmao, let’s give Karens some actual power!
Bizarre country. I mean all our countries have strange idiosyncrasies. Brits, no matter who is at fault will steadfastly both apologise if there’s a pedestrian collision. To the extent I once legitimately apologised reflexively to a lamppost. Or Germans will think lederhosen is a good idea, or Australians decided to repurpose the word ‘cunt’ as a term of endearment
American foibles tend to lead to you might die, or end up in prison scenarios.
To the degree that I’ve discussed tidbits with less terminal political nerds than myself and some of their ideas are so obviously bad that I’m initially disbelieved. ‘Look I know they love their capitalism over there but surely for-profit prisons aren’t a thing?’
We sure as fuck haven’t cracked every problem going over in glorious Europa, but at least most are somewhat difficult problems. The US will do stuff that’s so obviously a bad idea and be confused why the rest of us are confused.
It’s an interesting transition to observe, what with social media and way more exchanges of your ‘day-to-day’ living. In my youth America may have made some shit calls in foreign policy, it was still seen as quite an aspirational place. Hell I even applied to US colleges before realising me my family couldn’t remotely afford that route.
Nowadays like, Minibat is only 12 and enjoys his YouTube etc. ‘I like a lot of Americans but I wouldn’t want to live there.’
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
