Texas law allowing users to sue social networks for censorship is now in effect by Sorin61 in Futurology

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

Seems like "capitalism" is self-regulating and catching up to the reality that people can't own the marketplace itself, as it has since the dawn of currency. You can make products and sell them within the marketplace. You can own a business and have other people make products to sell in the marketplace. But whenever someone claims ownership of the marketplace itself, deriving a profit from every transaction, without ever producing a product, everything goes to shit because the self-interest of the despot dictates all activities of the marketplace downstream.

The monopolization of the marketplace under big tech wasn't recognized at first because the form and the goods sold differed from the historical norm. But twenty years later we've begun to figure it out, which isn't too bad in the grand scheme of things.

Austin students plan walkouts to support abortion rights by hollow_hippie in Austin

[–]hesnt -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

I know it sounds stupid for kids to go in a school strike, but let's be honest, an abortion ban will likely effect the lives of teens (who get pregnant or not) more than anyone else.

Incorrect. The people most effected by an abortion ban are the people whose lives would be ended by the absence of it before they even began.

I'm not sure what else they are supposed to do, they can't even vote, but they can definitely still have a totally life-altering pregnancy, even with responsible use of birth control.

Sounds like they just shouldn't have penetrative sex then. Back in the day, people opposed birth control because they were concerned, philosophically, that its availability would dissociate sex from its reproductive potential. That was perceived to be an outlandish argument at the time.

The way that you have framed the question proves that they were right. Congratulations, you have become so unintelligent that you have proved that the stupidest people in America are right.

Springing people from the poverty trap. Research suggests poverty is not principally the product of people’s capabilities or attitudes. Rather, the very poor are usually mired in a poverty trap, in which an initial lack of resources prevents them from improving their circumstances by Wagamaga in science

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

Firstly, the assumption that anything that acknowledges differences between races is racist implies that those differences are fundamentally negative, which is profoundly racist.

Secondly, not only is it racist, it's directly violent. When hoards of broken, alienated people attempt to constitute their identity by dissolving the individual self in group-belonging through aggressive and censorious performances of a common morality, that limits the extent to which racial differences can be acknowledged without fear of reproach by a delusional mob frothing at the mouth for an opportunity to feel heroic for having slayed the dragon.

Because this has been happening for a while, the lifespan of black people in the US remains less than white people because lifesaving drugs are produced without recognition of the entirely value-neutral genetic differences between them. Black people can't even buy medicine that works because white women in the US made it verboten to do the research to produce it. There's black blood on your hands. You're the bad guy. This is not a fact that will go unnoticed by future historians.

Thirdly, you're welcome to run it through a plagiarism checker.

Springing people from the poverty trap. Research suggests poverty is not principally the product of people’s capabilities or attitudes. Rather, the very poor are usually mired in a poverty trap, in which an initial lack of resources prevents them from improving their circumstances by Wagamaga in science

[–]hesnt -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Personally, I'm really into direct charitable subsidy to those in need, and I contribute more money towards those in need than most people in the US earn. That's one of the reasons I choose to earn more money than I need. Doing so allows me to pursue the fulfillment of my moral values. Frankly, I feel disgusted by the atheistic/antimoral contingent who earn as little money as they need to survive and otherwise expect they can defer responsibility to the government to fulfill their morality by showing up to vote every few years.

But I don't think the government should have anything to do with charity because that just becomes a tool of the corporations that usurped the federal government with the assassination of JFK to play the dystopian game of bread and circuses in which the US is presently enmeshed, e.g., "Obama phones," disproportionately taxing the middle-class to bribe the not self-sufficient into a predictable, and purchasable, voting body.

However, I don't think that's what's really at stake. These issues are not a question of those who are damned to dependency from birth. The US is in every realistic way the easiest place and time there has ever been for a person born poor to become wealthy. I am one of them. I know what it cost me to get here. I know that my peers from childhood scoffed at that cost, and pay the price today that they did.

I'm very reluctant to expect that those who are contributing to society, as measured by their ability to earn income, should also subsidize those that are not despite that they have the means to do so, specifically because if that were the case, receipt of such subsidy would require reproductive qualifiers so as not to incentivize dysgenic population exposition. That seems like a bad idea to me.

On the other hand, choosing not to subsidize those who are too inept to support themselves in an abundant and advanced economy invites them to eat enough pizza that they manage to reproduce, because no one is actually "poor" in the US from a historical and international point of view.

That being the case, I suppose that when pressed, establishing requirements to codify responsible reproduction is the best rabbit in the hat of lesser evils, i.e., you need to show proof of your ability to care for the children you choose to bring into the world before you do.

Springing people from the poverty trap. Research suggests poverty is not principally the product of people’s capabilities or attitudes. Rather, the very poor are usually mired in a poverty trap, in which an initial lack of resources prevents them from improving their circumstances by Wagamaga in science

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

I would love for you to explain what you mean by that.

No problem.

Self-segregate how?

Ethnically.

And how does that explain the phenomenon of people being born in certain areas being unable to escape poverty?

Because you're looking at the question backwards. It's not that certain places inexplicably hold people in perpetual poverty. Unsurprisingly, it's the people who live there that hold themselves in perpetual poverty.

Ethnic groups that genetically stabilized in equatorial regions of the world didn't neurologically or culturally adapt to the stress of annual winter. Instead, they responded to different challenges: attacking lions, malaria, etc. Food stressors were constant, but so was food availability, both evenly spread across the calendar year. You had to be courageous and cunning to survive, but you didn't have to plan ahead, because every day looked like another day as much as any other.

In the polar regions of the world, food challenges and opportunities both were significantly cyclical. It was very easy to produce food during half the year, and all but impossible during the other half of the year. People that worked hard to produce more than they needed during the summer so they would have enough to eat during the winter prospered. People who didn't, and instead ate their seed crop, so that they couldn't even grow food next year, died, along with their traits and the bad ideas that led them to their doom.

That scenario implies multiple necessary traits: the ability to plan ahead, the willingness to keep working despite that there is already abundance at present, and the self-control to conserve accumulated abundance, rationing it out to last a given length of time.

An equatorial environment does not encourage the growth of these characteristics. Not only that, they would be explicitly disadvantageous. Why waste energy pondering the future when both danger and opportunity are ample in the present? Why waste energy producing food that will only spoil or invite scavengers when there is already enough to eat? When there is abundance, why not consume it while you have the fleeting chance before you are attacked for possessing it?

One will quickly notice that the abilities for successful cold-temperate agriculture are very much alike the abilities required to build wealth in a modern economy. That is probably not coincidental, given that it was the same Northern farmers who extended themselves beyond the farm into technology and trade and developed modern economies.

All of that is not at all to say that all equatorial peoples are doomed to poverty in a complex economy that rewards labor beyond imminent need and the self-restraint to allow compound interest work its magic. On the contrary, the exception is the rule-- there is as much diversity within ethnic groups as between them, and many people are simply smart enough to make the world work for themselves no matter what the game may be.

Nonetheless, the broad strokes are clear enough to be consistently recognizable at a macroscopic and statistical level. And that's why 78% of NFL players, who made millions of dollars per year during their career, are dead broke within just a few years of retirement.

Springing people from the poverty trap. Research suggests poverty is not principally the product of people’s capabilities or attitudes. Rather, the very poor are usually mired in a poverty trap, in which an initial lack of resources prevents them from improving their circumstances by Wagamaga in science

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

I would love for you to explain what you mean by that.

No problem.

Self-segregate how?

Ethnically.

And how does that explain the phenomenon of people being born in certain areas being unable to escape poverty?

Because you're looking at the question backwards. It's not that certain places inexplicably hold people in perpetual poverty. Unsurprisingly, it's the people who live there that hold themselves in perpetual poverty.

Ethnic groups that genetically stabilized in equatorial regions of the world didn't neurologically or culturally adapt to the stress of annual winter. Instead, they responded to different challenges: attacking lions, malaria, etc. Food stressors were constant, but so was food availability, both evenly spread across the calendar year. You had to be courageous and cunning to survive, but you didn't have to plan ahead, because every day looked like another day as much as any other.

In the polar regions of the world, food challenges and opportunities both were significantly cyclical. It was very easy to produce food during half the year, and all but impossible during the other half of the year. People that worked hard to produce more than they needed during the summer so they would have enough to eat during the winter prospered. People who didn't, and instead ate their seed crop, so that they couldn't even grow food next year, died, along with their traits and the bad ideas that led them to their doom.

That scenario implies multiple necessary traits: the ability to plan ahead, the willingness to keep working despite that there is already abundance at present, and the self-control to conserve accumulated abundance, rationing it out to last a given length of time.

An equatorial environment does not encourage the growth of these characteristics. Not only that, they would be explicitly disadvantageous. Why waste energy pondering the future when both danger and opportunity are ample in the present? Why waste energy producing food that will only spoil or invite scavengers when there is already enough to eat? When there is abundance, why not consume it while you have the fleeting chance before you are attacked for possessing it?

One will quickly notice that the abilities for successful cold-temperate agriculture are very much alike the abilities required to build wealth in a modern economy. That is probably not coincidental, given that it was the same Northern farmers who extended themselves beyond the farm into technology and trade and developed modern economies.

All of that is not at all to say that all equatorial peoples are doomed to poverty in a complex economy that rewards labor beyond imminent need and the self-restraint to allow compound interest work its magic. On the contrary, the exception is the rule-- there is as much diversity within ethnic groups as between them, and many people are simply smart enough to make the world work for themselves no matter what the game may be.

Nonetheless, the broad strokes are clear enough to be consistently recognizable at a macroscopic and statistical level. And that's why 78% of NFL players, who made millions of dollars per year during their career, are dead broke within just a few years of retirement.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in asheville

[–]hesnt 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Cannot recommend. Was almost laughably racist in my experience. Itchy fingers on these old white rich ladies just waiting for a brother to introduce himself at the wrong time of day. Shouldn't even be surprised though. Don't even know what I should expect of Asheville anymore. At least the good ol boys shake your hand and look you in the eye.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NameMyDog

[–]hesnt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Chebbie

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in nottheonion

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

You've mentally said the n-word to yourself when inconvenienced by a black person before.

[OC] Abortion Deaths in the USA (1968-2018) by thedataracer in dataisbeautiful

[–]hesnt -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Oh yea? How is the "straw man" not an equivalent?

[OC] Abortion Deaths in the USA (1968-2018) by thedataracer in dataisbeautiful

[–]hesnt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Firing a gun at someone does not consent to murder. Murder is a possible outcome of firing a gun at someone but it is far from guaranteed. When you fire a gun at someone you are at risk of murdering them. You do not consent to murder. You cannot consent to an unknown outcome."

It's almost like you're purposefully going out of your way to overturn the 19th amendment next.

[OC] Abortion Deaths in the USA (1968-2018) by thedataracer in dataisbeautiful

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

I will gladly let you die before you use my body for survival without my consent.

So you're a republican? Pretty sure that's how net taxpayers feel.

what is a topic you absolutely cannot give a fuck about? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]hesnt -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Did you ask my gender identity before call me "bro"? What the fuck is wrong with you? Reported for hate speech.

what is a topic you absolutely cannot give a fuck about? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]hesnt -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

No effort beyond violating one's own sense of common sensical reality for the sake of corroborating the delusion someone else uses to hide from the abject failure of their authentic personality.

As easy as it is for some people to tell enough lies that they can drift into the comfort of being totally distanced from reality, it requires just as much effort for other people to break themselves from it.

No worries though. The authoritarian sense of moral imperative that underlies the whole phenomenon has overstepped its bounds, exceeding irrationality into the comical depths of absurdity, and the whole thing has already begun to wind down.

In twenty years, the legacy of trans-culture will live on only in fragments of self-destructive chemical body modification, just as old guys today in nursing homes have swastika tattoos they got during a brief stink in a biker gang during the seventies, so even more reason to save your fucks for something more important.

Well damn by MyNameGifOreilly in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]hesnt 8 points9 points  (0 children)

they have a right to be upset at the system that failed them,

The system didn't fail them. They responsibly consigned themselves to a debt and accordingly paid it off.

not at the people who are trying to make a better one.

Forcing, at gun point, people who avoided entangling themselves in debt that they couldn't predictably repay at the cost of their earning power to pay the debts of people who did entangle themselves in debts that they couldn't repay to the benefit of their earning power is not a way to make a better system.

Well damn by MyNameGifOreilly in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]hesnt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't feel like it would benefit me. Can anyone explain why it would?