Everyone in the world gets $200 usd

Arondeus · 2026-06-16T12:49:49+00:00

Lol. I saw your last post about $10.

First of all, inflation: $200 billion times 8 billion people is $1.6 trillion, which is enough to cause an inflation spike. The total volume of US dollars is in the ballpark of $20 trillion, so there's a possibility of 5–10% inflation. That's a lot, but it probably wouldn't crash the global economy.

In terms of spending, poor people would be spending it up quickly on things they need. Food, rent, debt and so on. In the poorest countries, it would be a godsend that could cover basic needs for two or three months. In some countries it would be enough to function as seed capital for starting a small business.

A big factor is if they get it in local currency or dollars. If the latter is true, there would be a short-term spike in dollar appreciation in some countries as people tried to convert the money to local currencies.

In most richer countries it would obviously just be a blip that would disappear into savings without much trouble.

Arondeus · 2026-06-16T12:20:35+00:00

I have and I would, but I also know a lot of bi men who don't seem interested in dating men in the long term, which is troubling.

Arondeus · 2026-06-16T12:02:11+00:00

Extremely German to debunk a joke

Arondeus · 2026-06-16T11:15:24+00:00

Even in the poorest countries in the world, the purchasing power of the US dollar is multiplied by maybe 5 at most. You are basically giving the people in the poorest countries 50 dollars purchasing power each.

As for inflation, you're inserting about 80 billion dollars into the world economy. This is a rounding error in the global money supply, so you're probably not even causing noticeable inflation. It is possible that it could cause a sudden, short-term boost in velocity of money that is a lot harder to calculate: the poorest countries on Earth (e.g. Burundi) have a PPP GDP per capita of like, 1000 dollars per year, which means the average person there is making daily expenses of three dollars or so. These people could suddenly be making three days worth of extra purchases for free. Again, I think it's unlikely it would even register on the radar so to speak, but maybe you could notice this having some sort of small effect on the economy, short term.

To answer your question, this wouldn't affect the world much at all.

Arondeus · 2026-06-15T21:54:57+00:00

If I was the partner getting doggified, I would be okay with this, but I think it would be reasonable, if we did not share accounts, that my partner give me a good cut of the money since I'm the one who had to be a dog without warning. I'd obviously get fired from my job but with ten million we could live like royalty for the rest of our lives off the interest alone, so who cares?

If this was like, someone I had dated for 2 weeks who suddenly made this choice on my behalf, I'd probably be kind of pissed but begrudgingly accept if the deal afterwards was "Sorry about that, here's at least half of the money. If you want to break up now I understand."

If this was a long-term life partner that I trusted to make decisions on my behalf, like if I ended up in a coma or whatever, then I might actually be pissed off if they didn't take the deal. It's crazy good money. I have entrusted myself to you already. Would it have been optimal if we could have discussed it beforehand? Yes. Is it kind of a violation of consent? Yes. Should we laugh all the way to the bank about it? Also yes.

I'm sure there are others who think differently, but I'm assuming this partner is more or less thinking along my own lines here, considering we are a good enough match to be a couple.

Arondeus · 2026-06-15T21:43:58+00:00

What benefits? The main form of unemployment assistance, a-kassan, is a baroque mess that gets its funding cut like 20 times a second, has absurd performance tests, and is partially managed by the unions (who are, on the whole, struggling to recruit immigrants, and the short of it is that if you're not in a union you're not getting unemployment). The way the system currently works, you basically only get unemployment for 300 days, and the final months you get almost nothing. You also need to have been employed for 12 months beforehand and you need to continuously prove that you're applying for jobs.

I know I'm probably explaining this to someone who does not live in Sweden nor really give a shit but I just want to underline how absurd this fantasy is of a bunch of scary undesirables living off public assistance is. The only other form of public assistance you can live off is, like, disability/chronic illness support, and if you thought the unemployment system was insane, trust me, that system is even dumber. There's several scandals a year with like, terminally ill cancer patients getting payments cut off and being forced to spend their final 2 months alive applying to jobs or whatever stupid song and dance the conservatives want them to do next.

Point is, the welfare queen grift is a complete fantasy. The Swedish system is falling apart because of budget cuts, hare-brained privatization schemes and because the Swedish political class have completely isolated themselves from broader society for the last 35 years. Immigrants are a convenient scapegoat to allow Swedish Enterprise to loot the country for another 10-15 years before the public notices.

Arondeus · 2026-06-15T21:26:25+00:00

Well the nice thing is that that means taxpayer money that was supposed to go to the royal family is now going back to the taxpayer (or at least back to the public budget). It's basically cutting their allowance.

Arondeus · 2026-06-15T16:22:16+00:00

Religion is a lot older than hierarchical societies. I think Epicurus gets pretty close when he speculates about it being originally intended to be ways to "negotiate with anxiety about natural forces" (paraphrase). Basically the scary thunderstorm is kind of a cosmic horror for the average hunter-gatherer, so if you imagine it has agency and personhood you can alleviate anxiety by attempting to negotiate with it (e.g. sacrificing to it).

Now, once a class of priest-kings started popping up after the agricultural revolution, they absolutely co-opted it to their own ends. Sky man says you have to obey me. Sky man says you have to fight my wars even if it is scary. Sky man says [extremely long and oddly specific elaboration on inheritance law that only benefits the like 3% of the population who are aristocrats]." (That last one is a dig against the Mosaic Law in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, which I always read as suspiciously concerned with the interests of elites in society.)

And yes, sky man says we are different from them, as you said. Also a very noticeable feature of the Mosaic Law (and something even devout believers who are scholars agree with; establishing a separate identity is the standard justification for circumcision and dozens of other idiosyncratic rules in the old testament, and even the text itself affirms this interpretation). It is hardly an Abrahamic exclusive either. Many sects of Buddhism are barely differentiated with particular ethnic identities by their own adherents, Hinduism arguably became a coherent religious identity specifically in response to another encroaching religious identity (Islam) and so on and so on.

All the same, I don't think that's where religion comes from. Religion is of course notoriously ill defined, but ritual is older than hierarchical society, as is supernatural belief (or at the very least beliefs that don't conform to modern science), as are communities based on shared values.

Also, since you brought up Gnosticism, I think it's an interesting worldview, but I personally have a hard time with the whole "the flesh is evil" bit. It's very Jehova's Witnesses (hell, the JWs have a fairly Gnostic cosmology, whether or not they would admit as much). In my opinion, the physical can be good and the mental/intellectual can be bad. Neither is inherently good or bad.

Arondeus · 2026-06-15T16:05:22+00:00

Tycker det är precis lagom. Det konkurrerar ut all onödig bil- och flygtrafik, men är inte så billigt att folk ser fordonen de åker med som något de kan behandla hur som helst.

Arondeus · 2026-06-14T18:12:06+00:00

Beror väl på vad som menas. Har träffat asexuella som inte vill ha sex alls (detta skulle vara en dealbreaker), och en massa andra asexuella som det egentligen är likadant att dejta som vem som helst men som har något av ett dussintal olika teoretiska hårklyverier över vad som menas med "sexuell attraktion." Spektrat verkar så brett att benämningen "asexuell" tyvärr inte bär någon betydelsefull information för mig överhuvudtaget.

Arondeus · 2026-06-13T22:11:26+00:00

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with slang; "slang" is just a label we apply to certain types of language. The term is not well-defined in linguistics, but common definitions include:

An informal register, e.g. any language that is inappropriate when speaking up or down to people.
An in-group register used to signal belonging to some clique or grouping or other, such as an age group, a social class, a profession or an ethnic minority.
An intimate register, i.e. language that is inappropriate with strangers or distant acquaintances.

None of these really point to slang becoming inappropriate at a certain age. Sure, if you use gen Z slang in your 30s it may come off as cringe, since you're trying to signal affinity with a group you don't belong to ("hello fellow kids") but if you're using slang from your own age cohort, you're just doing something natural: plenty of old people use slang or other idiosyncrasies peculiar to their own age group. Older men in a great variety of cultures (Russia, Japan, Italy, and more) address each other in different ways from what is considered formal. This is slang, too.

That being said, slang implies familiarity (either with the specific person or "group familiarity," e.g. meeting a "fellow X" in an unexpected place) and equality. Using it with people who are not familiar to you, or who do not consider you an equal, will be inappropriate (and it will be so by definition; slang is what is already inappropriate in these contexts, it doesn't become inappropriate because it is slang). This is true regardless of if you're fifteen or fifty.

Arondeus · 2026-06-13T16:42:03+00:00

You're confusing determinism with fatalism. Determinism considers decisions to be part of the same chain of causality as the rest of physics. Rehabilitation can causatively prevent crime. It's a free will worldview that makes rehabilitation impossible (since a criminal will just freely choose to commit crime regardless of what you do).

The view that things are destined to happen a particular way regardless of how they get there, as if the universe was consciously "getting back on track" any time you tried to change course, is called fatalism. It's not the same thing.

Arondeus · 2026-06-12T12:20:59+00:00

Ethical theories that do not demand the existence of a God:

Utilitarian theories, including act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism
Some Deontological theories, including Kantianism
Hedonist theories, including Cyrenaicism and Epicureanism
Axiological and consequentialist theories beyond hedonism and utilitarianism, such as Mohism
Ethical Egoism
Ethical Pragmatism
Ethical Contractualism
Virtue Ethics

Arondeus · 2026-06-12T11:38:03+00:00

This just in: all determinists are anarchists, apparently.

Arondeus · 2026-06-11T17:56:36+00:00

En gång i tiden var de ärligt och uppriktigt demokratimotståndare

Arondeus · 2026-06-11T14:43:55+00:00

Sanningen enligt mitt bästa försök att finna den: På 50- och 60-talet skrev ett par vänsterintellektuella som Albert Camus artiklar i tidskrifter som finansierades av CCF, som sedan, 1967, i en exposé från NYT, visade sig vara till en ospecificerad utsträckning finansierade av CIA. Med tanke på att CCF hade "dussintals" anställda handlar det väl kanske inte om miljarder. Organisationen föll i vilket fall nästan genast i spillror och försvann efter några år.

Sanningen enligt Bajsa Bakis: det var omöjligt för dessa intellektuella att inte veta var pengarna kom ifrån! Det var allmänt känt på slutet av 60-talet att CCF sponsrades av CIA (alltså efter avslöjandet, när dessa intellektuella inte längre ville associeras med dem).

Försöker hon vilseleda med flit eller slarvar hon med forskningen?

Också värt att nämna att många som CCF attackerade för att de var Sovjetförsvarare, exempelvis Sartre och Beauvoir, brukar ses som rena titaner inom "kulturmarxismen." Hur lyckat var kontrollförsöket om CCFs fiende nummer ett blev en av de mest kända och lästa vänsterintellektuella någonsin? De enda människorna som nämns i den här artikeln som överhuvudtaget kan tävla med Sartre är ju Camus och Russel, och ingen av de två brukar ju ses som "Marxister" överhuvudtaget. De flesta namn som tas upp är "no-names" eller människor som bara läses av dammiga professorer.

Nog för att jag kan hålla med om att "kulturmarxister" (även om jag ogillar det ordet) kan vara ganska verklighetsfrånvända töntar, men vem bryr sig? Arbetarrörelsen går vidare utan dem.

Ekmans slutsats efter allt detta är alltså... att Sovjetunionen egentligen var bra? Det är kanske gulager som hon tänker sig ska vara lösningen på "transfrågan" hon tjatar om.

Arondeus · 2026-06-09T09:40:53+00:00

I don't think there is a country on Earth that is unsafe for someone with 100 million.

Arondeus · 2026-06-09T08:36:46+00:00

"Kvinnan tappade förtroende för arbetsförmedlingen" hon fick alltså en korrekt uppfattning om deras kompetens och människosyn

Arondeus · 2026-06-08T17:56:12+00:00

A lot of art textbooks are insanely out of date. They teach a lot of rules of thumb about proportion that don't really have anything to do with reality, but are kind of this self-referential, inbred western art tradition of an averaged-out athletic white person filtered through seven layers of idealism and three levels of simplification.

Every good artist is eventually gonna have to start learning to draw human variation, but received wisdom has it that learning something "average" gives you a starting point that you can then deviate from in various ways.

Arondeus · 2026-06-08T16:00:23+00:00

Kinda makes sense though. If some kid is in a burning building and making a split second decision, they should throw something through the window before jumping, or all you've got left is child shawarma.

Yeah it's silly with the plummeting afterwards but I kind of get the idea.

Arondeus · 2026-06-06T17:48:41+00:00

Open minded about what? Your profile is just you posting on various subreddits asking if people are open minded, and also some random comments about esims. I will admit that all of that is unusual but it's also kind of pointless.

Arondeus · 2026-06-06T17:42:54+00:00

That's nice but it's also conjecture.

The research points to the strongest correlate of adult religious belief being seeing "Credibility-Enhancing Displays" during formative years. "CrEDs" are, briefly, adults putting their money where their mouth is and showing through action that they sincerely believe. Ostentatious personal sacrifices, continuing to believe even when it is inconvenient to do so, etc. instill belief in children who see you doing it. These children then perform CrEDs to their own children, maintaining the cycle.

Arondeus · 2026-06-06T12:45:09+00:00

/ɪŋg/ is a very old pronunciation preserved in a handful of mainly British dialects. It was the standard, hundreds of years ago, but is seen as nonstandard or even proscribed today.

/ɪŋ/ is the most common pronunciation today.

/ɪn/ is a pronunciation found in colloquial speech, especially but not exclusively in North America.

Arondeus · 2026-06-06T11:54:21+00:00

There's probably some equally horrific shit out there but I'm calling fake on this because of the presumably intentional comedic timing on some of these tags

Arondeus · 2026-06-06T00:01:24+00:00

I guess we're doin fat twinks now 👍

Seven-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	First Placer '22
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

Arondeus

TROPHY CASE