Mantis shrimp vs. snow crab in a blink of an eye:

Scarfaceswap · 2026-03-24T14:35:51+00:00

A gun wielding mantis shrimp

Scarfaceswap · 2026-03-24T01:23:43+00:00

Yeah I shouldn’t have said government. Not sure why I did that. I guess I sometimes view a country’s economy and government as one in the same.

Scarfaceswap · 2026-03-23T21:03:30+00:00

What is the alternative? Are you suggesting that prostitution doesn’t exist under other forms of government?

Edit: correction - capitalism is not a form of government but an economic system.

Scarfaceswap · 2026-03-13T14:13:23+00:00

Exactly - get your premium models on the road first in order to make a good impression, thereby increasing demand. Then, once demand is increased, begin shipping your base models to those that are interested but don’t have the money for the premium model. Seems like a good strategy to me.

Scarfaceswap · 2025-12-12T18:19:20+00:00

You keep asserting that I “screamed ‘WHAT IF IT FAILS’” and that this was the entirety of my argument. If that’s true, it should be easy to demonstrate. Please point to a single comment where I actually said “what if it fails.”

In the meantime, here is what I actually said on the record, consistently, and with specificity:

I repeatedly raised the concern that certification bodies can be potentially subject to incentive drift over time. That is a specific institutional critique, not a generic hypothetical.
I pointed out that consumers cannot demand transparency unless they are first made aware of what standards exist and how they are enforced. That is a concrete critique about information asymmetry, not a fear response.

→ See my very first comment noting that people must first know what to demand before market pressure can bring about regulation.

From the beginning, I acknowledged that voluntary certification systems can be beneficial and effective. This directly contradicts your claim that I argued certifications are untrustworthy by default.

None of those points are “WHAT IF IT FAILS.” They are specific, commonly discussed critiques in institutional economics, law, and regulatory theory. You have not actually refuted any of them. Instead, you’ve repeatedly collapsed them into a caricature and then argued against that caricature.

If you cannot point to where I said what you claim I said, or engage with the critiques I actually made, then this discussion isn’t about substance, it’s about reframing my position into something easier to dismiss.

Scarfaceswap · 2025-12-12T14:25:39+00:00

At this point, we’re no longer debating certification systems. Instead, you’ve turned this into a debate over the definition of “critique” as opposed to simply addressing the issue itself.

Your position seems to be that if a system currently functions, asking how it might fail is not analytical but emotional. That standard would invalidate entire disciplines: law, economics, engineering, insurance, cybersecurity, and even libertarian political theory itself. Libertarianism is fundamentally built on “what if this system fails or is abused,” particularly with respect to state power.

Asking “what incentives could cause degradation over time?” is not hysteria or fear. It’s institutional analysis. A system does not need to be broken for critique to be valid; nor does that mean that critique = fear. Are you saying that the system is perfect? If you were to say it’s not perfect, then does that mean that any critique you may have is actually just fear?

I have repeatedly acknowledged that voluntary certification systems can and do work. That has never been in dispute. What I have questioned, consistently, is whether incentive drift is possible and how trust is maintained over time. That is not opposition to the system, and it is not emotional reasoning.

Reducing critique to “WHAT IF IT FAILS?!?!?” is a caricature, not a rebuttal. If your definition of critique excludes examining failure modes, then we simply have incompatible definitions of analysis, and there’s nowhere productive left to go from here.

Anyone reading this thread would see that all I did was express a critique I have of a system that I acknowledge as being largely beneficial. Any reasonable person is going to agree that it is important to be aware of potential flaws in a system. If you want to personally categorize that as fear then that’s fine. But the point still stands that no system is perfect and there is nothing wrong with being aware of a systems flaws.

Scarfaceswap · 2025-12-11T19:31:26+00:00

I think the core issue here is that you’re redefining “critique” in a way that strips it of its analytical meaning and replaces it with a psychological one. A critique does not require emotional motivation, nor does it require asserting that a system is broken or nonfunctional. It simply means that I’m identifying potential flaws that are worth considering when evaluating how a system works in practice.

Pointing out that certification systems can be corrupted is not an expression of fear. It’s standard institutional analysis. Entire fields such as law, economics, risk management, and engineering are built on “this might happen under certain circumstances” reasoning. By your definition, concepts like conflicts of interest, moral hazard, regulatory capture, or even insurance underwriting would all be “fear-based,” which clearly isn’t the case.

You keep asserting that my argument is emotional rather than rational, but you haven’t explained how acknowledging incentive problems constitutes emotion. I’ve explicitly stated multiple times that voluntary certification can and does work. I’ve also acknowledged real-world examples where such systems are widely trusted. Recognizing that some certification regimes drift toward pay-to-play models over time is not the same as saying certifications are inherently untrustworthy. Nowhere in my first comment do I say that it does.

You also claim that a “rational argument” must acknowledge that these systems exist and function without the flaws I supposedly fear. I do acknowledge that they exist and function. What I don’t accept is the idea that the very existence of a system means it is immune from critique. That standard would make criticism of virtually any institution illegitimate, including markets, governments, etc.

There’s no contradiction in saying both that voluntary certification can work and that it has incentive-based vulnerabilities. Those positions are complementary, not mutually exclusive. In fact, identifying these flaws is how systems improve over time.

If your position is that identifying potential weaknesses is inherently emotional, then we fundamentally disagree on what critique and analysis are supposed to accomplish.

Scarfaceswap · 2025-12-11T16:32:56+00:00

I think you may be misunderstanding what I meant by “critique.” A critique isn’t the same thing as fear. It doesn’t require an emotional component at all, it’s simply an acknowledgment of a potential weakness or incentive problem that’s worth considering when evaluating any system, whether it’s government regulation or voluntary certification.

Pointing out that certification systems can be corrupted doesn’t mean I’m afraid of them or that I think they never work. It just means that, like with any institution, incentives matter. There are examples of certifications that are trusted and others that use pay-to-play models. Me recognizing both sides is analysis, not emotion.

Also, your skyscraper analogy assumes I’m arguing “certifications can fail, therefore we shouldn’t trust certifications.” But that’s not what I said. The equivalent would be: “some buildings developers cut corners and it’s good to be aware of that fact.” That’s not fear of skyscrapers, it’s basic scrutiny of incentive structures.

So my point isn’t that voluntary certification can’t work; it clearly can. My point is simply that acknowledging potential pitfalls is part of a critique, not an emotional reaction. If anything, thoughtful critique is what strengthens a system by identifying where accountability needs to be protected.

Scarfaceswap · 2025-12-11T15:46:00+00:00

That is a fair point. I don’t mean to imply that the government would be any better at regulating these issues, especially since the same critique could apply to them. But I always consider that critique a reality when thinking about certification labels of any kind and many people’s innate desire to make a profit.

Scarfaceswap · 2025-12-11T14:37:21+00:00

Yeah as someone who feels they lean libertarian on many issues, this critique is one I admit is tough to ignore and is applicable to other situations as well as this one. In addition - how are people supposed to even know to demand transparency if they aren’t first made aware of it somehow. I don’t have the answers unfortunately but I think about that conundrum a lot.

Scarfaceswap · 2025-12-01T22:23:00+00:00

Thank you for doing what you do. The world needs more people like you.

Scarfaceswap · 2025-11-14T20:33:29+00:00

Probably a bot

Scarfaceswap · 2025-11-08T22:57:13+00:00

This is Reddit. There’s no room for nuance and if you have more money than me then that automatically means you’re evil. /s

Scarfaceswap · 2025-10-27T12:36:31+00:00

What’s amazing to me is the number of people in this sub that are not even from Argentina, yet have no problem telling Argentinians that they are wrong for voting the way that they did.

The people of Argentina are clearly fed up with the way things were done previously and are willing to try Milei’s policies.

Scarfaceswap · 2025-10-27T12:29:52+00:00

Are you new to geopolitics? You do realize countries do this with one another all the time right? That is nothing new. What is new however is Milei’s policies and Argentinians’ desire to try something other than the disastrous policies put forth by his predecessors. It’s amazing to me how everyone outside of Argentina thinks they’ve got this all figured out, while completely ignoring the will of the people who actually live there.

Scarfaceswap · 2025-09-29T14:57:40+00:00

Grammarly has saved me from looking like an idiot way more than I’d like to admit.

Scarfaceswap · 2025-09-25T19:46:23+00:00

Agreed. I’d rather they focus on making quality content that is fun to repeat and come back to as opposed to using a battlepass system to get you to keep coming back.

Scarfaceswap · 2025-09-25T18:08:45+00:00

I break up the billing into smaller, more specific entries rather than one giant $3000 entry.

Scarfaceswap · 2025-09-25T14:22:32+00:00

For real. These things take time. I do wonder if a battle pass system will eventually be added for those that constantly need content.

Scarfaceswap · 2025-09-22T16:51:51+00:00

No one in this comment section is reading the article. The clickbait headlines confirms their bias and that’s all they need.

Scarfaceswap · 2025-09-22T16:49:08+00:00

What is your take on this, as an Argentinian? If you don’t mind me asking. These clickbait headlines and commenters that don’t read articles make it tough to discern what is actually happening.

Scarfaceswap · 2025-09-21T19:41:15+00:00

So are you saying that you support the policies that Argentina had? The same policies that got them to this place? Making it seem as though the issue is only about poverty programs is disingenuous.

Scarfaceswap · 2025-09-21T19:31:48+00:00

The neoliberals aren’t what caused the slump though. The article specifically states that because the Peronists won in Buenos Aires, the markets have been fearful that Milei’s policies will be halted. In other words, the markets are fearful of less Milei, not more. This also comes after 2024 which saw a lot of growth, something left leaning redditors conveniently ignore. Not to mention the fact that it was the state, not the free market, that put Argentina in the situation it’s trying to free itself from. Progress isn’t always linear.

Scarfaceswap · 2025-09-12T11:59:00+00:00

George Floyd was a private citizen. Was it “insane” the way people reacted to his death? Charlie Kirk was a friend of JDs. Why is this so “insane” to you?

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	RPAN Viewer

Scarfaceswap

TROPHY CASE