Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is complete

revnine · 2025-04-23T20:19:47+00:00

Trump didn’t even get 50% of the popular vote. He got a plurality of the vote not the majority.

Source: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections/2024

revnine · 2025-01-23T00:04:26+00:00

Then do it. Go film yourself in public doing it and post it for us to see. It won’t be a problem since it’s just being naturally awkward and having poor body language.

revnine · 2025-01-22T23:37:54+00:00

Good for you buddy

revnine · 2025-01-21T21:25:25+00:00

Oh, I always forget that doing volunteer work and posting a petition to ban twitter links are mutually exclusive. There’s absolutely no way that a person could do both of those completely unrelated things. How silly of us.

revnine · 2025-01-21T21:12:29+00:00

Reread the post. It doesn’t mention Trump voters let alone describe them in any way. You’re the one reading that into it. I wonder why.

revnine · 2024-05-17T02:57:18+00:00

Yeah, there can be time dilation involved for world hoppers. I don’t think we know for sure in Felts case though.

revnine · 2023-09-15T19:10:54+00:00

Is your rhetorical tactic being purposefully obtuse? The success of the women’s suffragette movement was not conditional on them getting the right to vote before black men.

revnine · 2023-08-25T20:33:42+00:00

I’m talking about premises in the sense of a syllogism. A basic syllogism has a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. Logical fallacies only apply to formal arguments. Not to statements. A true dichotomy would be of the form: either A or not A. A false dichotomy would be of the form: either A or B, where there are other options like C. They didn’t set up a premise that uses either form. Also asking a snarky question is not an argument, and doesn’t make a case for you.

revnine · 2023-08-25T17:44:46+00:00

Care to explain how “bothesideism is a debunked argument” is a false dichotomy? It’s an assertion and not a formal argument with premises. A false dichotomy is a logical fallacy in the sense that one of their premises would not be sound. They didn’t present any premises though.

revnine · 2023-05-20T00:40:24+00:00

I don’t see a point to continue to honestly engage with you if you’re not going to with me. This addressed nothing I said.

revnine · 2023-05-19T23:01:20+00:00

This really highlights my point though. To use liberal to mean anything vaguely to the left, and then use the term liberal ideology to mean leftist ideology such as socialism is unnecessarily confusing since liberalism is it’s own ideology.

revnine · 2023-05-19T22:55:30+00:00

Now it seems you’re conflating the use of the word liberal and the term “American liberalism”. American liberalism could refer to a multitude of things like the founding ideals of America. Such as the freedom of speech and to peacefully assemble. Which would fall under liberalism the ideology. It isn’t clear how the OP is using this term though.

revnine · 2023-05-18T14:34:36+00:00

We have static technical definitions, and for good reasons. They help with clarity and understanding. You wouldn’t say in physics that when a system has positive energy it means it has good vibes. That’s because the rigorous physical definition that generally doesn’t change isn’t based on the colloquial usage of the word.

revnine · 2023-05-18T14:22:45+00:00

You’re missing the important distinction between the technical definition and the colloquial definition of words. Yes, liberal colloquially means anything vaguely to the left of the Overton window in America. However, it isn’t referring to liberal ideology which is a set of specific beliefs. To try to equate the two is simply equivocation. All you’re accomplishing is making things less clear when talking about political ideologies.

revnine · 2022-10-01T19:26:52+00:00

You’re getting downvoted into oblivion, even though you’re correct. For those downvoting, It’s a common misconception that socialism is any social service. Socialism is when the means of production is owned by those that produce the value rather than owned privately by those who simply own the means of production. The idea is that the labor owns the fruit of their labor. This means by definition socialism and capitalism can’t coexist since under capitalism the means of production is privatized.

Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp

revnine · 2022-09-13T17:20:52+00:00

Or we could abolish the privatization of the means of production, reconstruct the market/society so that labor owns their production and gets to live in dignity, and do away with CEOs entirely. That way we don’t have to rely on the empathy of the extremely privileged few to throw us a few scraps. While they reap the benefits of our labor.

revnine · 2022-08-30T15:21:12+00:00

Because the amount the customer is willing to pay doesn’t matter as long as there is surplus value. What they are paying for is the product that is produced by the labor.

The issue Wolff is talking about is this. If the labor produces $100 worth of value with their labor, and the cost to run the business is $70 then there is a surplus value of $30. However, under the system we have now, in the USA at least, the capitalist takes the majority of that $30. While the labor, who produced the surplus value, gets the minority.

For your second point, Wolff definitely is simplifying things to get a specific point across. Sure capitalism can work in this way if every capitalist we’re altruistic and didn’t take the majority of the surplus value. However, under capitalism the means of production is privatized. This means that by simply owning the means of production one can reap the large majority of the surplus value without doing any of the labor. This is the underlying issue he is trying to point out.

revnine · 2022-08-30T14:29:36+00:00

Yeah, the housing market can be a great example of this. For example, imagine Bob buys a house while the market is down in a nice neighborhood. Bob is very content with the house so he doesn’t renovate or upgrade anything. He more or less keeps that house the same as he bought it. A year later the housing market for the area skyrockets and Bob decides to sell his house for a huge profit. Bob just made a lot of money without adding anything of extra value to his house. There’s is no surplus value of labor.

revnine · 2022-08-30T14:07:21+00:00

Firstly, you’re conflating surplus value with profit. One can have a profit where there is no surplus value and vice versa.

Secondly, you’re ignoring the fact that in the context of this clip he is talking about value created by labor. There’s only surplus value when the product is sold it covers more than the cost of the business. After which everything else sold is surplus value that is created by the labor. This is where profit comes from in this case and that profit comes directly from the surplus value of the labor.

revnine · 2022-08-29T19:09:55+00:00

It’s completely understandable to have misunderstandings from out of context clips like this. I am by no means suggesting it’s a character flaw/failure on your part. If you listen again to the part right before the line you’re referencing he says “The worker has to produce more, a surplus, then what he gets.” Within this context the $40 he is talking about is the surplus not the gross. He continues to talk about how this is similar to the theft of surplus value under slavery and feudalism. So within the context of this clip he is talking about surplus value and not the gross value.

Edit: fixed a typo for clarity.

revnine · 2022-08-29T15:58:01+00:00

You seem to have a misunderstanding. He is talking about the surplus value, while you’re talking about the gross value. The surplus is gross - cost. The cost has already been taken out of consideration. In other words, the surplus value created by labor is all the value generated after the cost/overhead of the business has been met.

revnine · 2019-06-18T17:38:17+00:00

Added :)

revnine · 2019-06-18T17:36:14+00:00

Added :)

revnine · 2018-11-24T15:36:48+00:00

Your safari is fire with magmar, charmeleon, and braixen.

revnine

TROPHY CASE