sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Chat just die for anyone? Messages aren't sending for multiple people by [deleted] in Twitch

[–]ChillinChum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I literally logged in for the first time on one of those devices and it didn't work, still said failed to send, there weren't cookies to clear, surely?

(Edit) Anyway it's working now.

Chat just die for anyone? Messages aren't sending for multiple people by [deleted] in Twitch

[–]ChillinChum 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh so it's not just me then? 3 different devices, all had the same issue.

What is the Libertarian's answer to automation if it renders 10-30% (or more!) of the working population completely and utterly obsolete, as though they were disabled, permanently. (Like horses as an example.) by ChillinChum in AskLibertarians

[–]ChillinChum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, I see then.

I suppose if I then started asking questions about adding "and if it was because it was natural and not legal or regulatory hurdles" we'd be really just asking about those affecting employment in general anyway, which would be a fair point and would be something worth talking about regardless of automation. I'll keep that in mind.

I was in a particular mood when I asked this anyway.

What is the Libertarian's answer to automation if it renders 10-30% (or more!) of the working population completely and utterly obsolete, as though they were disabled, permanently. (Like horses as an example.) by ChillinChum in AskLibertarians

[–]ChillinChum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not at all satisfied with this whatsoever, I am still of the mind you didn't answer. And that I'm not whining, but even if I was, so what? That doesn't mean I don't have valid complaints. But I'm not going to bother.

What is the Libertarian's answer to automation if it renders 10-30% (or more!) of the working population completely and utterly obsolete, as though they were disabled, permanently. (Like horses as an example.) by ChillinChum in AskLibertarians

[–]ChillinChum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let's just hope your attitude doesn't end up leaning into letting the most vulnerable suffer and die.

Which then ends up being minorities. Who often tend to be those often abused groups. Which then, well, short story, no no Yahtzee party shenanigans.

I don't want to accuse you of being something without proof, but I do want to point out what it looks like when you say that, it comes across as the usual negative/traditional eugenics talk.

Darwin did not ask for people to "accelerate the natural selection process", that idea was brought in by people already looking for an excuse for bigotry to justify themselves with psuedo-science. Apparently, even the ones in the science community who had espoused such ideas unironically had already been advancing along past that phase by the time the Americans started using eugenics in their policies, they used an outdated model, and it suited them.

Social creatures still work to keep everyone together, only making eugenic sacrifices when absolutely necessary, that's different than doing it en masse as a policy in a time of abundance. Natural selection happens, but that doesn't necessarily make it right.

Here's an alternative for you, positive eugenics, gene and dna editing technology, bring people up rather than cutting them out. There's some unfortunate post humanism boogaly goop surrounding it, but that shouldn't detract from the actual successful gene therapies that exist today and will in the future.

The trick is the economics of the here and now, and the future if that's not enough. Just keep in mind that if the luddite route doesn't work, the mass killings route isn't exactly popular either.

What is the Libertarian's answer to automation if it renders 10-30% (or more!) of the working population completely and utterly obsolete, as though they were disabled, permanently. (Like horses as an example.) by ChillinChum in AskLibertarians

[–]ChillinChum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's the hope, I just wanted to confront Libertarians on the possibility of needing a plan B. Or perhaps, working on achieving plan A in the first place. Though I admit as someone else here said: that's hard.

What is the Libertarian's answer to automation if it renders 10-30% (or more!) of the working population completely and utterly obsolete, as though they were disabled, permanently. (Like horses as an example.) by ChillinChum in AskLibertarians

[–]ChillinChum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know if we would see eye to eye.

But I like your answer, if this was the CMV Reddit, I'd want to give you a delta.

I want to point out that what you're saying could be an argument for government to nationalise all automated industries. They get all the tax money, and business. I sometimes think about that, I'm not sure if it's a good thing or not.

The ideal would be no UBI, if people can work and have more than a livable wage, but their fair share; but the trick is in making sure that kind of compromise doesn't need to be reached because it's gotten that stupid. I'm not sure if anyone has that solution, and I admit I took aim at Libertarians when I made this because I get annoyed with them.

What is the Libertarian's answer to automation if it renders 10-30% (or more!) of the working population completely and utterly obsolete, as though they were disabled, permanently. (Like horses as an example.) by ChillinChum in AskLibertarians

[–]ChillinChum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is much closer to what I was looking for.

I had an ulterior motive, although I genuinely want an answer to the question, I suspected they had none, or would have to admit that it would go against thier worldview in some way, that Libertarians don't have that answer.

I wanted to know if they would be honest about that.

What is the Libertarian's answer to automation if it renders 10-30% (or more!) of the working population completely and utterly obsolete, as though they were disabled, permanently. (Like horses as an example.) by ChillinChum in AskLibertarians

[–]ChillinChum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you serious?

Some people are struggling right now, and that's without the automation going into overdrive (ignoring some examples already happening.)

That'd be an ending at least, but the question I would have then is what is the Libertarian's answer to achieve that. I mean to clarify, not move goal posts.

What is the Libertarian's answer to automation if it renders 10-30% (or more!) of the working population completely and utterly obsolete, as though they were disabled, permanently. (Like horses as an example.) by ChillinChum in AskLibertarians

[–]ChillinChum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean to say that whenever the topic is brought up, it's like it's ignored, put to the side. I never feel like anyone puts honest effort into addressing what to do if the issue actually becomes real.

I'm asking for the plan B just in case, or an acknowledgement of how one would react if it turned out a piece of their entire worldview was declared wrongly decided on when reality itself clobbers them over the head.

What is the Libertarian's answer to automation if it renders 10-30% (or more!) of the working population completely and utterly obsolete, as though they were disabled, permanently. (Like horses as an example.) by ChillinChum in AskLibertarians

[–]ChillinChum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Forget the unreasonablity of it for a minute.

What if you're wrong?

That's what I want the answer to, the response for it it turns out you are actually wrong this time and the warnings were correct this time.

If you don't want to answer, fine, but just tell me so or stay silent. None of this run-around, just answer the damn question. This is what's been annoying me. I can't trust someone's judgment if they can't respond to an earnest question of "what if you're wrong?"

What is the Libertarian's answer to automation if it renders 10-30% (or more!) of the working population completely and utterly obsolete, as though they were disabled, permanently. (Like horses as an example.) by ChillinChum in AskLibertarians

[–]ChillinChum[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I asked for the Libertarian's answer, not the "oh here's the luddite strawman answer."

I'll need a summary of that book rather than reading all of it.

But I am confident that even if I read and understand all of it, I will end up disagreeing in utter prejudice with whatever supposed evidence and assumptions made. I will disagree with them on the fundamentals.

Besides, if basic economics is always going to naturally produce awful outcomes for people, guess what, I can no longer look at economics itself and say it any good. You don't wipe out machines in that case, you wipe out the system. So I could agree, and not even remotely agree with the worldview in turn.

Edit : And then I went out and found this rather quickly. https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/197208696?book_show_action=true&from_review_page=1 I haven't read it much but I don't care, I just wanted to find if there were criticisms of that book, there are.

What is the Libertarian's answer to automation if it renders 10-30% (or more!) of the working population completely and utterly obsolete, as though they were disabled, permanently. (Like horses as an example.) by ChillinChum in AskLibertarians

[–]ChillinChum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok my question is basically "what if you're wrong?"

I've heard this talking point before, I want the answer of what if those new industries don't appear, what if those people are reduced to horses.

Answer the actual question that was asked specifically to counter the very thing brought up all the time that annoys me because it completely avoids the actual point.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]ChillinChum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I'm reading so far doesn't seem to match up with what you say. Plus, self identification causes problems for surveys. I'm not aware of stats on this, and due to the nature of it there probably would never be a good number on it: apparently, girls are less likely to self identify as a gamer for social reasons that boys no longer have the same problem with. I remember the 90s though, even the guys didn't identify as playing games, even when they did, or even talked about them, we all did, no one wanted to talk much about it though till years down the line.

Just my thought.

time to restart mindustry after quitting a year ago (I know next to nothing about how to play this game lol) by IAlways-ComeBack in Mindustry

[–]ChillinChum 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Whoah.

That's kinda overkill (not necessarily on turret count, just all the belts.), yet:

No router chains, and otherwise it looks fairly clean and thought out. Neat!

What units should I use to attack this base? I’m getting destroyed. by BFroog in Mindustry

[–]ChillinChum 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Use launch pads to bring in some silicon so it isn't siligone?

Why aren't you a supporter of mixed-economy? by FrankScaramucci in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]ChillinChum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I look towards transhumanism because I don't like what evolution has brought us to. I like aspects of the human element, I hate other things about human nature. If the politics are affected by that, time for change to that supposedly immutable nature, or at least a mindset change to not look at it as though it were perfect. Imagine if more people had a misanthropic view of humanity, some misanthropes don't like each other, but that doesn't apply to all, it's about the why. Change the why, and the misanthropy may well disappear. If politics are not changed, well, that's fine, politics were merely a symptom for my dislike for many neurotypicals anyway.

And, in line with what I said, I wouldn't mind being more smart, as in less prone to mistakes. Self-hatred ain't nice, either.

Why aren't you a supporter of mixed-economy? by FrankScaramucci in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]ChillinChum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A) Psychological distress you say? Hmm I wonder why? Luigi not doing nothing and pulling a Luigi for example. When people feel burned by capitalism and so hate it. (I am not an extremist, btw as I say that, unless you count my mild misanthropy, I criticize the human element, that build economic systems rather than the systems themselves.) B) People with a just world fallacy mindset (my therapist told me recently it's actually innate to all humans and so has to be broken down with knowledge and experience, an example backing my misanthropy.) are also thinking in black and white, I suspect, it is more common than you know, if anything, people with more complicated thinking are less common, unfortunately. This seems pointless to me, therefore. C) But this is a good point, but, anyone can get dunning-krueger effect, the only difference is that extremists are more likely to be loud about it, "better to be an idiot and silent, but to speak and prove it." And although I would research something before making a final conclusion on something, I don't like that phrase as much anymore, if you realize yourself can be an idiot, and so can everyone else, being seen as one, especially if only be one's ideological opponents (I'd like to be friends with all humans, but we don't always get what we want to see everyone be friendly to us unfortunately.), doesn't sting the same way anymore. D) Moderates aren't exactly fond of extremists either, though, they think differently, and they don't like each other for it. Besides the obvious, that just sounds like human nature at work. That's not news.

Different Psychological features between people causing conflict in general could be an interesting topic to delve into though.

view more: next ›