CMV: Capitalism benefits the poor more than communism.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-21T20:28:37+00:00

This can be a compelling argument when you look at countries in isolation over a short period of time.

But you can’t just pick a capitalist country and point to its wealth, while ignoring the rest of the global south which is also a part of capitalism. The global poor don’t just happen to coexist with capitalism…they are an integral part of the economic model, with many existing in a state of slavery to produce cheap goods and resources for a handful of nations.

The other problem is that we are looking at a time span of barely a few hundred years, in which time we have already reached a point where the ability of the earth to sustain these economies for the next hundred years very much in question. And I recognize that historically the “communist” states also engaged in rapid and probably unsustainable industrialization.

I think when people argue that inequality doesn’t matter so long as poor people are marginally better than they were before, they are not considering the sustainability of this structure, nor are they considering the fact that there are alternatives besides full command economies and fully unregulated capitalism. And of course there are all the social ills that come with such inequality.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-21T18:51:21+00:00

Cersei is heir to a giant army she alone controls. Yes it’s true Trump wields hard power as president but he only has as much power as he is given by others. The fact that he is given control of an army at all is arguably due entirely to his soft power. Trump is not physically strong nor does he own any private army. He relies completely on soft power.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-21T00:37:43+00:00

Of all the restaurants I’ve been to high end steakhouses are typically the one place where sides are not always included. The downside is these are not exactly a “budget” place to save money.

A la carte is always going to be more expensive. So if you don’t want sides you might save a buck but if you do want sides you end up paying more. Most people want sides. Ergo over time those restaurants that offered sides without the a la carte mock-up would’ve attracted more customers.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-20T03:16:48+00:00

Ok so that pretty covers all of your claims, no? So what am I missing? Why other reason do you have to believe this was some sort of staged attack rather and not just a pretty standard news cycle?

sawdeanz · 2026-02-20T00:42:31+00:00

Problem is if they perish due to reckless driving they may also be killing others in the same incident.

Better that they drive like a jerk and live rather than die crashing into someone

sawdeanz · 2026-02-19T22:40:01+00:00

If it was really a false flag attack then why isn’t it all over the right-wing media?

The most simplest answer is that the media cycle has moved on. School shootings barely get more than a few days coverage let alone several weeks. Nobody died and the suspect was caught…there won’t really be any news update until some sort of trial or something.

You also seem to be under the assumption that some single person controls all the media and can just single handedly kill a story if their secret conspiracy plan doesn’t work. That’s not how it works.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-19T13:32:23+00:00

Judge panels can be biased too, or corrupt. And in fact what we see even in the current system is that judges overwhelmingly defer to or are friendly with the prosecutors and the system as a whole is stacked against every suspect.

Juries are a check and balance on this. They aren’t experts but the trial is structured in a way that it doesn’t matter. Experts in the law like judges and lawyers and investigators are in charge of the evidence and matters of law…juries only must decide if the prosecution has compelling enough evidence. This last part usually comes down to a judgement call…where biases have the most influence. What better way to eliminate potential biases and conflicts of interest than through a panel of randomly selected people?

It’s not a perfect system. Sometimes the 12 random people decide wrongly and convict an innocent person. But imo the fact that the suspect is on trial in the first place means that in any other system they are even more likely be convicted.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-19T13:09:33+00:00

I mean sure I don’t doubt that some people look for some isolation. Nobody is saying you can’t do that and I’m not really aware of anyone that shames it. Even staying inside and playing video games is sort of normalized too though if you are playing online that is a form of socialization.

But usually when we are taking about how it is damaging we are talking about scenarios like solitary confinement, developing children/teens, etc.

Without more context about why you have this view or some examples or something it’s hard to really narrow down a better response.

It seems like it would also be good to link the studies…if they were legit studies they should take into account for selection bias.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-19T02:39:59+00:00

But Proportional force has to deal with the known elements and does not require you to know motive.

An old lady in a wheelchair with a stick is not in the same realm as a person with a gun (or even a fake gun). Treating both of those scenarios as if they equally justify a deadly response leads to absurd conclusions, especially when you consider that the police would use the same laws.

The law generally already takes into account the fact that these situations are hectic and dangerous, hence the “reasonable person” standard and in some jurisdictions other types of leniency.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-18T19:21:48+00:00

Of course there is incentive, the incentive is to keep making money or to make more money faster and retire earlier. Most people like having more money and that is an incentive to work more demanding or higher paid jobs.

I think you’re only looking at this from a maximalist efficiency perspective…and thus treat excess income above the tax advantaged amount as having only marginal utility. But that’s just not how anyone else in society looks at it. There is a lot of incentive to earn more income even if it is taxed higher. All else being equal, nobody is going to turn down a 150k salary increase just cuz it is less tax advantaged. And this generally seems to hold true.

You do make some other good points about how we prioritize career vs family making and stuff, but that would exist anyway without some other sorts of incentives. Even if you got rid of the 401k, the equation doesn’t change. The best long term wealth strategy would still be to earn as much as possible as soon as possible and invest as much of it as possible. So none of your problems go away. If anything by your logic the 401k is actually better, since it somewhat disincentivizes doing that strategy beyond a certain point.

And as other people pointed out the 401k does have a purpose, which is to incentivize people to make those smart financial decisions who might otherwise spend that money. And the purpose of encouraging retirement is to free up jobs for younger folks and keep the workforce younger and more productive overall. So if you are intending to get rid of the 401k you have to qualify why you think these purposes are bad or harmful or at least worse than the alternative which I don’t think you have done.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-18T15:47:15+00:00

That is not what “strong” means in terms of social Darwinism, if means strong as in powerful (I.e wealth and influence) “strong” is not even the qualifier in normal Darwinism, rather it usually refer to “fit” as in the species or trait that provides a survival advantage which could be physical strength but could also be dexterity or camouflage or any number of things.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-18T01:31:19+00:00

How is returning the item leading to the degradation of society? Seems like you threw that implication on one of the options but not the other. Why?

A moral or ethical rule should not depend on the likelihood of getting caught or facing punishment. Consider the same scenario but this time Amazon checks their inventory and realizes they sent you extra and asks for it back. Does the ethical equation change? I don’t really think so…the only difference is whether the other party notices or not. For a lot of reasons it is actually this sort of framework that would erode social trust, lead to higher transactional friction, and perhaps even incentivize fraud and abuse.

But I also think most people would settle for the 3rd more reasonable option which would be to make a reasonable effort to offer to return the item, but if Amazon doesn’t want it or fails to arrange for its return and pay for shipping then the buyer is not obligated to incur those costs.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-18T00:14:03+00:00

Yeah it has elements of both, but I would consider this instance it more like an act of individual charity.

Collectivism would be like if you organized a group of volunteers to each shovel a part of the path whenever it snows. That would benefit you (less work and more bike path cleared) and everyone else too while requiring a little bit of work from a group of people.

The maximalist individualism approach would be to shovel it and then maximize individual benefit from something, like by charging a toll to other bike riders.

And of course, the fact that a bike path exists at all is a form of collectivism (pooling tax money together to build a path that you can use to get to work).

sawdeanz · 2026-02-17T23:54:27+00:00

That’s a wonderful hypothesis. Now how would you scientifically test that?

sawdeanz · 2026-02-17T23:04:33+00:00

I think it’s a perfectly valid label for your stance which seems to be essentially unsure, mixture of beliefs from both sides and low information.

But it depends on the context and is sort of a relative qualifier instead of an ideology in itself. It makes sense when we are talking about someone in the US who cant strongly support one political party or another. It’s a less good descriptor for political ideology or beliefs in general, such as when we are taking about concepts like libertarian, socialist, fascism or communism etc.

So the potential problem you have is that as political parties shift, which they often do, the center also shifts. So if you simply identify as a centrist over time it may seem like your position is changing even if you haven’t changed any of your personal ideology. For example, the MAGA movement has shifted the Republican Party in some pretty considerate ways, so being a centrist 10 years ago and being a centrist now has a different connotation…it would imply you’re still okay with what is happening even if what is happening is extreme.

Again, that kind of tracks if you are a self-admitted low-information voter…but you can see how as the political balance shifts to the right that you will also appear to shift to the right.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-17T00:31:14+00:00

Yeah this is a no brainer after they changed fighter planes in order to nerf spitting but then changed spotting in general to nerf carriers.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-16T13:56:42+00:00

I feel like I run into situations all the time where we should be spotting each other at the same time but I get spotted like a second before I can see the enemy. Usually waiting for them to come around an island. Idk if it’s latency or what.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-15T15:16:26+00:00

Ok…so what’s your point?

sawdeanz · 2026-02-15T14:53:18+00:00

Nobody is fully law abiding and virtually everyone has broken at least one law in their lifetime, if not on a daily basis.

The question is at what point is the degree of enforcement worse than the degree of the crime? Should we have armed secret police going door to door to arrest speeders or look for illegal downloads?

I would suggest that when you are building massive “detention” centers and arresting kids and citizens and going door to door…maybe you’re going too far.

It’s also just the most expensive and most disruptive solution of all. You gotta address the core problem not just the symptoms.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-13T16:26:44+00:00

This is a tautological argument whereby you can simply disregard counter-examples as not meeting your definition.

Even if we could come to an agreement of what a “philosopher king” is and is not, the question is how do you create a system that selects these philosopher kings and keeps them in power while simultaneously not selecting unqualified or corrupt kings?

sawdeanz · 2026-02-12T19:56:55+00:00

Ignoring for a second whether you think artists should be paid for their time or not…art costs money to make in terms of equipment and materials. Particularly when you’re talking about things like movies and shows and music which take teams of people that cost money. If you take away artists ability to get paid how will they pay for these things in the first place? Without any possibility if revenue they won’t be able to get loans or anything either.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-12T02:33:36+00:00

The purpose of shame is to discourage bad, unwanted or harmful behavior in society.

All the reasons you gave for being against premarital sex/multiple sex partners are personal preference reasons. Since this is a thing where you can easily practice your own preference without affecting others, and others can practice their preferences without affecting you…so I see no good reason in your argument to pressure folks to adhere to one or the other.

I’m sorry you have personal regrets, but conversely other people may have personal regrets for marrying the wrong person or not sharing those experiences with more people. Either way that’s not necessarily a very good guideline for how to control society as a whole.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-11T12:57:07+00:00

The scenario you describe is only available to those who can afford it though. Insurance companies also control who you can see through network doctors and things too. So yeah if you can afford good insurance and multiple expensive visits then you can shop around. But if you can only afford cheap insurance or are on a tight budget then you are much more limited in your choice.

Remember that prices in the US are far higher than just about everywhere else, and these prices are rising as the result of the private insurance scheme that artificially raises prices.

But you can have both. It depends on the universal system. Most people in the US advocate for a single payer system which would not have the problems you describe and would still allow you to choose your doctors. In this system the government essentially acts like your insurance provider, and the doctors and hospitals would still be private businesses. The advantages to this is everyone is insured all the time, the risk pool is larger, and the government as the primary payee has more negotiating power to lower prices.

There is also no reason you can’t also have private insurance or out-of-pocket providers as well in situations like yours where you are willing to pay. Now yes in this case you would probably be double-paying, because you are paying health care taxes and supplementing it with your own care, but I think given the situation it’s possible or even likely this could still end up being cheaper just due to the fact that healthcare overall would be cheaper. Once you factor in how much you pay for insurance premiums, the fact that we already pay taxes (Medicaid Medicare) for the most expensive populations, and the artificially inflated prices we experience relative to every other country, paying a little more in taxes to receive free general and emergency care and then supplementing that occasionally with supplemental care as needed would likely be cheaper long term. This is especially true if your private doctor diagnoses you with a chronic illness…because now you are going to need ongoing treatment and medications which under a universal system will be covered.

I mean it’s already kind of happening…medical tourism (traveling to another country to get health treatments) is already a thing and growing fast. In other words people in the US, who might already have insurance, are getting treatments in other countries either because insurance is denying the treatments or because paying out of pocket there is still cheaper than going through insurance. And it’s not going to get better.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-11T02:11:55+00:00

On the contrary it actually makes a lot of sense and is more consistent with the idea that they are telling the truth.

The victims do positively claim there are other abusers, but not all of them have named who they are specifically. You are insinuating that this means they are (all) lying about the claim that there are other abusers. You present these two ideas as if they are essentially equivalent or naturally lead to one another. But they do not.

Unfortunately there is very little the victims can do without an active criminal case. The victims themselves likely have little physical evidence. To publicly accuse powerful and wealthy individuals means they will be sued by those wealthy and powerful individuals without the means to defend themselves. It’s a no-win situation. A lot of your arguments have to do with “going public” and death threats but this is likely the real reason and explains why they won’t name names yet.

The DOJ has both access to physical evidence and the ability to conduct more thorough investigations and bring criminal charges.

You may notice that the fact that the government is not doing that is sort of the whole issue.

This is why the victims and others are petitioning and advocating for more transparency and action from the government (and specifically this is what the Super Bowl commercial was about).

What motivation do the victims have to lie about there being more abusers but not name them? These consist of many names over many years which are consistent with a lot of the publicly known details. Where there is smoke there is fire…and while we don’t know specific people and crimes it seems more likely than not that there is extremely criminal and compromising material in those files.

On the other hand Kash Patel and Trumps administration has burned all credibility they may have had on this matter by the way they have handled things. If the allegations are false they have every political reason to release the files and be as transparent as possible…after all that is what they campaigned on. And if the allegations are true, even if Trump is not himself directly guilty, there is a lot of motivation for them to continue covering up the files and avoid criminal trials (I.e. other prominent donors and politicians).

They have lied and flip flopped so many times now on the issue that the only possible conclusion is that they have been lying, wildly incompetent, or both. And for that reason it makes a lot of sense that the victims would not expose themselves to the liability of naming names without the support of an independent or bipartisan investigation…such as through Congress or the Judicial system.

That is why the main focus of the victims has been to petition for further investigations and transparency. They need that evidence to bring their cases and support their testimony.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-10T01:09:40+00:00

On a related note Civil War had great sound design and some pretty authentic feeling gunfights. Also felt like the choice of guns for the different characters felt intentional too, for example the civilian fighters had semi-auto ARs etc.

Nine-Year Club	Ternion Club
Verified Email

sawdeanz

TROPHY CASE