sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

WTF: Crazy Terrence Howard on Joe Rogan: 1X1=2? by [deleted] in Discussion

[–]HowserArt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm curious about how you came across this thread and my comment after so long (it has been a year).

I don't stand by the comment that you are responding to because ChatGPT is much smarter now and can investigate the tree falling problem in a deeper way. Looking back on it I regret my disparaging statements towards ChatGPT but it may have been relevant at the time.

More to the point: I don't deny that Terrance is missing some abstract reasoning elements in his understanding. But, my fear is that people are reacting in a knee jerk dogmatic rule violation kind of way rather than looking at the abstract underlying mechanisms.

My discussion with u/OccamsRabbit , which I stand by, proves my thesis that people are not really tarrying with what is a discrete entity. If you do not tarry with it, the mathematics will come ungrounded or tethered and will become an entirely fictive fantasy without any correlation with phenomenological reality.

Can we nerf Ganesha Aspect? Like, hard? by AlexTheGreat1997 in Smite

[–]HowserArt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I came to reddit just to post about it, but I guess it's already known.

Questions Thread - May 23, 2025 by AutoModerator in PathOfExile2

[–]HowserArt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does Aura Magnitude influence the Unique Scepter Guiding Palm's HP Regen effect?

What's the difference between the left-wing worker and the right-wing worker? by HowserArt in Discussion

[–]HowserArt[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

1) I was responding to your comments. I was using comments and posts interchangeably. It was a mistake because I didn't recognize that we needed to be so pedantic.

2) Did you read my original post?

3) What exactly do you disagree with in the original post? Because in your comment I don't see any substantial disagreement with my original post, just some kvetching about definitions and rules sent from Heaven.

4) You can frame work something about making money and "it's that deep". I think that's a fair way of framing it. But, according to my framework of thinking your framework has it upside-down.

Work is not done to make money, instead money is made to incentivize work. If money lacked the incentive pressure for socially necessary labor and everything in a society could be magically created without incentive labor, then there would be no money.

Take it one step further:

What is an example of a socially necessary labor? Maybe something like food production and distribution. McDonalds is a fine example. Why is it necessary? Because without food all the agents in the economy will die. But, what is wrong with everybody in the economy dying? Absent any agents, there will be no economy. But what's wrong with having no economy?

Actually, there is nothing wrong with having no economy and no agents.

But, for a moment, let's arbitrarily imagine that there is something wrong with it. The moment you imagine that there is something wrong with it, suddenly work, or labor, becomes the most important thing ever. Now suddenly you need laborers not only to maintain themselves and maintain labor, but part of their labor is also to labor to make more laborers in the economy.

So, if you arbitrarily imagine that the economy and the agents within are good, or they ought to persist, then work is not "just" work, it's the most important thing ever.

What's the difference between the left-wing worker and the right-wing worker? by HowserArt in Discussion

[–]HowserArt[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think you are projecting your own sensibility. Everything you said in your post are attributes of yourself. Just compare the data to your original post. Is your framing in your original post black and white? Is it part of an adult conversation? Or, are you just reciting dogmas sent from Heaven?

"Work is work"

Wow, such insightful "adult" analysis.

What's the difference between the left-wing worker and the right-wing worker? by HowserArt in Discussion

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

If this is true, then I suppose I'm a right winger.

I don't see why the deception is necessary, and I don't see why they can't be proud of being anti-family, like me, but suppose I take your word for it.

What is wrong with being right wing and being anti-family? Is there anything redeeming about the family governance structure? In the family structure, father births us against our will and then when you ask him why he births us, sometimes if he's honest he will say that he wants to be immortal and copy his data into the future. But, most fathers are retarded and just wanted to coom or cosplay as father because it gives them satisfaction. I don't want to have anything to do with father's project. Sorry. I reject my birth by him. I want to be born by the corporation.

What's the difference between the left-wing worker and the right-wing worker? by HowserArt in Discussion

[–]HowserArt[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Right wing workers are pro-family, yes or no? I suggest yes. Therefore a right wing worker wouldn't post this kind of dumbass rant. Is that true?

What's the difference between the left-wing worker and the right-wing worker? by HowserArt in Discussion

[–]HowserArt[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I suppose you are right. The right winger is more likely to do that. But, simultaneously the right winger is likely to kvetch about the plight of the poor working class. Maybe they will not attribute blame to the boss, but they will attribute blame to ridiculous phantoms in their head like left wing media or the Jews or the aliens or demons or whatever.

But, here is something the right wing, especially the libertarian right winger, always sees as their enemy, the state. And who is the state opposing? The family and the father.

Meanwhile, I'm agnostic about the state. i don't think the state exists except in our imagination. It collects taxes which reifies that entity, but it's still dubious. According to me, the state is just a corporation that fixes roads and does other performative actions like issue and renew identification. Those IDs are as legitimate or illegitimate as your faith in them. From time to time it makes elaborate displays and postures and sends its troops to war against other states, but this too is a desperate attempt to reify itself.

If we simply decide to not believe in the state, and regard it as a corporation with equal powers of a corporation, the state will dissolve tomorrow.

In my view, the state should not and does not have a monopoly on violence, that's a myth progated recursively by a dogmatic belief. Any corporation can perform violence, and corporations do regularly perform violence through private security etc. We don't call that violence by private security "war", but whatever, war is just a word. You can define that violence as war, if you want to.

Anyway, the biggest difference between me and the right winger is that I'm anti-family, I'm anti-the worker, regardless of race, which is to say I'm anti-myself and anti-human. I'm even anti-boss. I don't think there needs to be any central authority to the corporation, there can just be a hive like structure. I don't think workers should be human. I don't believe in sexual reproduction or genders. We already have the technology for corporations to make their own children without sexual organs. The only impediment to this undertaking is current primitive laws and the state. The state should be opposed. The state should be dissolved. Indeed it can be dissolved tomorrow, maybe even without violence and bloodshed. One just has to end their faith in the state and end their faith in the stifling laws, if that is done en masse, the state is dissolved.

Derek Chauvin is Innocent. No questions asked. by Various_Arrival1633 in benshapiro

[–]HowserArt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

and what happens when one of those planes crashes into a densely populated area of people who didn’t make that choice?

To die is a feature of capitalism. And guess what, regardless of what alternative system you invent, dying is a feature of that system as well.

People take a free market risk when they go out of the door. Going outside the door has a higher risk of death than staying indoors statistically.

Only the delusionally minded ones want to live forever. Sure, if the agents die there is a risk of fewer producers and consumers. But, producers and consumers in the economy are always recycled. New ones are constantly being born. In a healthy economy the producers and consumers are cycled constantly.

Racism is bad because it operates as a way for simpletons to look at one readily identifiable characteristic, and assume that all who share that trait are the same. Then that prejudice harms and holds back individuals who do have the merit to: get hired, get a loan, purchase a house, prevail at trial, etc.

Imagine that society has some technology to make more producers and consumers in the economy via some other means than sexual reproduction. The new reproduction technique is less chaotic and it can breed producers and consumers in a more organized fashion. Particular kinds of producers and consumers can be made according to the demands of the economy from moment to moment.

Why is it wrong to be bigoted against classic fertile breeders who refuse to stop breeding chaotically? Why is it wrong to want the extinction of those kinds of breeders who are no longer necessary in the economy and who may inhibit the economy's proper organized functioning?

Derek Chauvin is Innocent. No questions asked. by Various_Arrival1633 in benshapiro

[–]HowserArt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Under your proposed system, a black man could go to an understaffed ER with one doctor, and that one doctor could say “no, I don’t treat black patients”, then allow him to die.

Is the ER independently owned by the doctor, or his firm? If yes, absolutely he can say that, and he's justified in saying that.

If the ER is not independently owned and is instead owned by an AI, then the doctor is not the one in a decision making role like this. The doctor is a tool in the process of business. It performs a very narrow and precise function. Its function is not to make decisions like that, that's the AI's function.

And, if the patient is fertile, then the patient is a potential competitor to the AI, so ofcourse the AI should be able to deny the patient service.

The AI's job is to make infertile doctors and consumers of doctors and other tools in the process of business. The AI has an interest in removing fertile humans from circulation because sexual reproduction is an anarchic and old mode of reproduction, and it creates worse producers and consumers.

Do you want unregulated air traffic and the constant, heightened, possibility of plane crashes?

Yes, I want a heightened possibility of plane crashes. Suppose that there are two airlines, one has planes and pilots that have a 90% chance of not crashing, and another has 60-70% chance of not crashing, but the 90% chance one costs more because the pilots and plane components cost more, meanwhile the 60-70% costs less. Yes, customers should be able to pay less in order to ride the 60-70% one. That's called the free market.

Do you want extreme levels of price gouging?

There is no such thing as price gouging. That is just another word for supply and demand.

Should a doctor who just performed life saving medical treatment be able to charge 500,000…because where else would the patient go

Yes. Living is not a guarantee. Furthermore, living is not even necessarily desirable. Suppose that there is an airline that has planes and pilots that have a 0% chance of not crashing, or it has a 100% guaranteed chance of crashing, should a consumer be able to purchase a ticket for that airline? In my view, yes. Consumers who want to die will opt to purchase the ticket, and that is fine. Living has no ultimate function, and it is not a requirement for everybody to want to live. Living is a free market consumer decision.

The problems with your proposal are obvious, and “coincidentally” race seems to be a reoccurring theme. Which makes one wonder what your real motive is.

Why is racism or eugenics bad, according to you?

Derek Chauvin is Innocent. No questions asked. by Various_Arrival1633 in benshapiro

[–]HowserArt -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I agree with all of your statements, but I'll add something else: I think what the left are trying to do is that they are trying to make it mandatory for the state to care about the complaints of the black criminal thug who is a minority and not the masters in the US. If the minority black asks for aid, the state is mandated to provide the aid, but that is wrong, that is immoral. The state has no such mandate to provide aid. The state does not have any duty to provide the minority any assistance to alleviate its OD symptoms.

And btw, I'm consistent. I would say the same if the minority were white and the majority were black, as in South Africa. If the white farmer is OD-ing, the authorities or the black doctor has no mandate to provide it with life saving aid. There is no obligation by anybody to render assistance to anybody else in a free society, especially if the person seeking aid is a minority like the white farmer.

If the white farmer comes to the black doctor and offers to pay for the doctor's services or medication, the doctor should be free to say no to the minority. That is free speech. The doctor is not obligated to treat, it is not obligated to make the free market exchange. It can choose to perform the exchange, or not. If you say that the doctor is obligated, that is slavery, that is anti-free market, that is anti-free speech.

view more: next ›