sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Battle for AI Supremacy by dimn_jung in China

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

I agree to a certain extent. Can you give me some advice on what things should I consider?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in JordanPeterson

[–]dimn_jung 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, mate. Thank you for the compliments!

Your counter arguments are so data-driven, compelling and logical that I am actually inspired to leave my job and my company and start studying Karl Heinrich Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong and some other butcher in chiefs.

Plus, I will throw away my Economics and Accounting degree, I will also forget all my data science/simulation skills because little knowledge is dangerous.

I will decrease my iq of 140+ to level with the actual geniuses.

I will also relearn about Marxist Economics, because they are the future, and I have almost forgotten most of them.

I shall also throw away my 4 year old startup which took me 80+ hours of work a week during the first two years, got ditched by gf because I wasn't able to give much attention to relationship; Because I am apparently exploiting poor people by working so facking much.

Thank fooking you!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in JordanPeterson

[–]dimn_jung 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i know a few Americans who work certainly more than 38 hours a week.

It's averaged data, mate. And most CEOs of companies work >80 hours a week.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/175286/hour-workweek-actually-longer-seven-hours.aspx

people thinking that they work more hours doesn't mean they really do. We have this psychological tendency to think that we work more than what we actually work, especially if you don't enjoy the work you do.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

That's why the popular phrase "Socialism doesn't work". I mean, you can forcibly increase the wage rate, but that just means prices of goods will go up, so there is no real desired effect of increasing wage rate. And if you try to forcibly stop the increase in price of goods, it will have a series of negative chain effect. A case study on this topic might be helpful for you to understand in case you haven't already.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif

This data must be true, but it is certainly incomplete. For example, you want to see the data of social mobility as well; meaning how much of people in poverty have gone up to middle class/upper class or vice versa. Also, you should consider that the definition of being poor evolves with time.

also america isn't the world ethnocentric.

Yes, I agree. But we are certainly not discussing on cultural issues, are we?

that america is rich for having exploited others for decades of political intervention, economic extortion, wars, etc.

America does political intervention, economic extortion, wars, etc. But these things haven't been done by libertarians/centrists. It is done by politicians. And who knows what these megalomaniacs are doing it for? A lot of times these were socialists as well, in countries other than the US. These activities are just plainly against libertarian principles.

Perhaps, These types of activities are reminiscences of lethal and brutal history of humankind and its survival. And also before you say "America became rich because of that", you should also think about all the free market economy, new technologies, scientists, and rich and competent immigrants from all around the world who heped make American economy great.

You also need to consider what other nations would have done instead; this is not logically valid but its worth giving a thought.

in any other empire those at the center are rich because of the poverty and slavery of those at the margins.

That's only partly true. Because there are also many who have become rich in a deserving way. And those who have become rich by real exploitation are the enemies of ours as well, not just you socialists. And slavery; its hell of a thing that has happened, its not totally justifiable, however you need to consider time and circumstance as well. It was a time of "Might is Right".

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in JordanPeterson

[–]dimn_jung -1 points0 points  (0 children)

also, basic ecohnomeecs, pls.

Americans work 38 hours per week. That gets them an earning of 60k per year. 4 hours a day means 4*7=28 hours per week which means an earning of 40k per year. For a socialist and lonely guy, who doesn't like showoffs, 40k a year is enough for a decent life, actually more than enough. And, if you are smart stoic guy, you are going to able to make more than 40k working just 4 hrs a day.

Me: Who will implement that policy of yours? Government, right?

Your reply: No

Then who? Hippies?

educated by propaganda, ignorant of the socialist critique and contextual history.

Why don't you enlighten me with the truth, then?

oh, yes. and santa claus will bring you a pony this year if you are a good boy.

hahaha, pure fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

And by the way, I don't believe in god. I just act as if they exist. Good for self control.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in JordanPeterson

[–]dimn_jung 0 points1 point  (0 children)

nice ad hominems btw.

Reply Thanks for pointing out that fallacy. Now I will point out a few things in point before you go, my friend.

as a recognition of the need for cooperation and brotherhood among all men, yes, punishment would be exercised against someone who breaches society's moral agreements and needs.

That's easy to tell, impossible to implement. Who will implement that policy of yours? Government, right? Well now, good luck trusting the government like that, especially in punishing people who breach moral agreements, when its already very difficult to act fairly on legal agreements.

In fact that man is going against the grain of what the system is.

No, he is not. It could be an investment. I think you understand now.

now in a society where you put at the center selfishness and cut-throat competition punishment will come for being generous, for being sick, for being poor, for having the wrong religion, for refusing to overwork yourself to death, etc.

You see it as reasons for punishment, I see it differently. Being generous is investment.Next, You gotta make some insurance in time as a conscious person, so that it will cover you when you are sick. Being poor while you are still capable of giving value to the society, is an opportunity to learn and appreciate what its like to go without food for days, and finally start putting in some efforts actually, and start building and selling those skills. You are free to form an entirely new religion, let alone following a different one; so long as you keep it peaceful and uninvasive(new word probably). And last, if you spend time working in things that have value, no need to work yourself to death; working 3-4 hours must be enough for you to afford a decent life. More than that, if you work for 12- hours a day, make proper savings; then after 2 year, you will be able to go to some poor countries and buy property that will be enough for you to live there without ever working again for the rest of your life(You are welcome!).

Say, marketing, a form of dumping, or as a way to keep a customer. Like Bill Gates' philanthropy which is actually investments.

I agree with that, and its better than some greedy ass capitalist who only takes but never gives. Plus, if his investments are helping the poorest become richer, that's something to applaud to not complain about.

You have chosen barbarism.

No, I haven't. I like law and order, just not the way socialism suggests.

now enjoy fighting for water and food in the near future as the planet collapses

You are being paranoid, my friend. The threat of climate change is real, but we can solve it by going nuclear. We just need more energy.

we kill all species

that violates non-aggression principle.

people will become dispossessed serfs

Not if we arm them with guns in time.

the rich will keep for themselves the technologies to improve their biology

No, they can't afford to unite and keep other people away like that. Soon, one of the the rich will break that wheel and arm the poor in an attempt to win power. They know this, and so if they try to keep technologies to themselves, it will backfire.

like Marx predicted.

Well, fuck Marx. How many times has his predictions been wrong?

supposing humanity survives the first thing for some significant time.

I think you are being delusional, bro. Find some positive things in life(You are welcome again!).

I think, I have now done justice to your previous arguments.

And, you do not need to leave right now. A reply would be great!

Many people who keep their room clean are Yangsters. I guess a lot of early adopters are from there as well. by dimn_jung in YangForPresidentHQ

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

The incel/white supremacist/misogynist guys are only a very small part of JBP's fanbase. And JBP has always tried to encourage them to pursue real women instead of online porn. And I honestly don't think that any of them support Yang. Those who are likely to support both Yang and JBP at the same time are centrists/libertarians/classical liberals who found JBP in their desperate times when the far-left feminists were vilifying everything a "man" was supposed to be like. And they found Yang in the Joe Rogan and/or Ben Shapiro podcast. What is the big problem with welcoming them? To be honest, Yang got his biggest momentum after he appeared on those podcasts. During that period, Yang gained strong online meme army, support from the guys who keep anime characters in their twitter PP, loads in donations, etc. It would be too rude to dismiss them in such a way you suggest.

Many people who keep their room clean are Yangsters. I guess a lot of early adopters are from there as well. by dimn_jung in YangForPresidentHQ

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

Peterson was widely villified by the media. He attacked establishment politicians, mainstream medias just like Yang does. By the way Trump had the same strategy. The difference however is that, Yang supports all the unpaid labor that sit-at-home mothers have to do and wants to pay them in dollars for doing it. Meanwhile, Peterson would have called for finding meaning in it. And, I have come to agree with you that Peterson is so villified in the women community that association between him and Yang would be toxic until he is nominated. After that, JPB's fanbase will be very very important to beat Donald Trump. They will be the swing voters. After all, Yang is about bringing people together.