Lurker > Nemu

The insane thing is there is probably a percentage of people who would actually refuse.

While Trump is by no means a good person in my opinion, I do wonder what the history books will say about him in 100 years after all this silly and unnecessary demonization of him.

If true, sorry for your loss. If not, good bait.

Godnorgosh posted...

nemu posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

nemu posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

Well, most people already don't want to be doctors anyway due to the time investment and (particular to capitalism) the astronomical cost of medical school. These factors together bring about an inordinate degree of risk to anyone unsure about entering the field.

Marx was not specific on these kinds of questions, but he did assert that labor ought not be alienated, so by that standard, conditions which encourage only those truly interested in doing something to do it are socially optimal.

The problem is most of those jobs are really needed, and those truly interested with no need for advanced compensation are going to be extremely low. So you either need to compensate them with better things or better housing, or you run into an extreme shortage.

If these are things that are needed to maintain a steady supply of doctors, then that's not something I'd consider incompatible with Marxism.

This association between egalitarianism or "equality of outcome" and Marxism has always been pretty weird to me, especially considering Marx's and Engels' own comments, but it ought to be addressed because it's certainly a significant misconception of what Marxism is.

Isn't that basically just maintaining the status quo in the end? Even if you get rid of the super-rich, you'd still have all the high paying jobs needing to have luxury compensation while the menial jobs get menial compensation. You could maybe abolish the poverty line, but in the end you'll have a bunch of poor people under the thumbs of wealthy people trying to stay wealthy.

No, not at all. Abolishing the capitalist class would go a long way toward abolishing class distinctions overall, even if perfect equality is unattainable. "Menial" jobs wouldn't mean "menial" compensation, because the surplus value of one's labor would not be stolen. Politicians would not be encouraged by corporate lobbyists to pass legislation favoring only the wealthy, not only because the capitalist class has been abolished, but also because workers now control whatever state might exist.

Another consideration is that money does not constitute the only form of compensation. Remember that communism necessarily presupposes the abolition of wage labor, so in such a society, other forms of compensation, most likely those satisfying use value directly, would be considered. If one did try to use whatever form of compensation one did possess as a means to subjugate or oppress others, in this sort of worker-controlled society, that person would likely be punished, if not executed.

The compensation would not have to be monetary, but it would need to put them in a state above others. It could be better housing, better vehicles, luxurious vacations, etc. This means there is incentive to push others below you to get those better things. That's no different than capitalism. You could maybe have such a society where nobody is poor, but you're still going to end up with a social divide of the upper class privileged people who get the good jobs and the good things, and the envious lower class who don't get those good things. Maybe people who would be living on the streets now would have a home and food, but it won't prevent others from desiring more. Then you're just back to square one.

PiOverlord posted...

nemu posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

nemu posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

Well, most people already don't want to be doctors anyway due to the time investment and (particular to capitalism) the astronomical cost of medical school. These factors together bring about an inordinate degree of risk to anyone unsure about entering the field.

Marx was not specific on these kinds of questions, but he did assert that labor ought not be alienated, so by that standard, conditions which encourage only those truly interested in doing something to do it are socially optimal.

The problem is most of those jobs are really needed, and those truly interested with no need for advanced compensation are going to be extremely low. So you either need to compensate them with better things or better housing, or you run into an extreme shortage.

If these are things that are needed to maintain a steady supply of doctors, then that's not something I'd consider incompatible with Marxism.

This association between egalitarianism or "equality of outcome" and Marxism has always been pretty weird to me, especially considering Marx's and Engels' own comments, but it ought to be addressed because it's certainly a significant misconception of what Marxism is.

Isn't that basically just maintaining the status quo in the end? Even if you get rid of the super-rich, you'd still have all the high paying jobs needing to have luxury compensation while the menial jobs get menial compensation. You could maybe abolish the poverty line, but in the end you'll have a bunch of poor people under the thumbs of wealthy people trying to stay wealthy.

The solution is that you can't allow major differences in pay. Pay has to be as little of a factor as possible, and you have to encourage people to do it for the sake of their own self-fulfillment rather than the fulfillment of your pockets.

If doctors are revered as idols in this society, than the doctors will become the new elites, a group with more power than the other groups.

That is an unreachable utopia. Humans aren't so disgusting that they will forgo all others for the sake of individual achievement, but they will not be stagnated by that either. There can be a balance introduced where the haves can help the have nots to the best of their ability out of their own good will, but expecting everybody to work in a society while always keeping this fine line of everybody being happy is impossible. Somebody will want more, will work to take more, and then the society will collapse.

Godnorgosh posted...

nemu posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

Well, most people already don't want to be doctors anyway due to the time investment and (particular to capitalism) the astronomical cost of medical school. These factors together bring about an inordinate degree of risk to anyone unsure about entering the field.

Marx was not specific on these kinds of questions, but he did assert that labor ought not be alienated, so by that standard, conditions which encourage only those truly interested in doing something to do it are socially optimal.

The problem is most of those jobs are really needed, and those truly interested with no need for advanced compensation are going to be extremely low. So you either need to compensate them with better things or better housing, or you run into an extreme shortage.

If these are things that are needed to maintain a steady supply of doctors, then that's not something I'd consider incompatible with Marxism.

This association between egalitarianism or "equality of outcome" and Marxism has always been pretty weird to me, especially considering Marx's and Engels' own comments, but it ought to be addressed because it's certainly a significant misconception of what Marxism is.

Isn't that basically just maintaining the status quo in the end? Even if you get rid of the super-rich, you'd still have all the high paying jobs needing to have luxury compensation while the menial jobs get menial compensation. You could maybe abolish the poverty line, but in the end you'll have a bunch of poor people under the thumbs of wealthy people trying to stay wealthy.

Godnorgosh posted...

Well, most people already don't want to be doctors anyway due to the time investment and (particular to capitalism) the astronomical cost of medical school. These factors together bring about an inordinate degree of risk to anyone unsure about entering the field.

Marx was not specific on these kinds of questions, but he did assert that labor ought not be alienated, so by that standard, conditions which encourage only those truly interested in doing something to do it are socially optimal.

The problem is most of those jobs are really needed, and those truly interested with no need for advanced compensation are going to be extremely low. So you either need to compensate them with better things or better housing, or you run into an extreme shortage.

It's so dumb to fire anyone for what's an obvious series of crude jokes from years ago, especially when they have seemingly decided that was in the past and tried to move past it. They have every right to do it, but they're really just kowtowing to outrage culture most likely. Now, if it turns out his propensity for the jokes relating to kids was actually more than a joke, then the witch hunt can commence.

Godnorgosh posted...

nemu posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

nemu posted...

I get that the TC is just s***posting, but if everyone is equal, what incentive is there for people to go into high risk work or work that takes years and years of studying?

Not sure how that answers the question. I'm not a scholar on communism, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the end goal is to have no elites, right? Nobody should be far above anyone else in the social standing. So if that is the case, there cannot be elite high paying jobs, which means there is no incentive for a large amount of people to want to go into those fields aside from those truly passionate about them.

That depends on your understanding of "elite," I suppose. The Marxist understanding of the capitalist class, what you might refer to as "elite," is that it consists in the class which profits not through its own labor, but through investments and surplus value from others' labor.

Doctors are not innately part of this class just because they have high salaries. Their salaries are high because their labor is less replaceable and in high demand, not because they are exploiting others' labor.

Such jobs are still in high demand and thus would require higher compensation than other jobs. That would still entail having a class system, just more on the personal level. Or if everyone is given the same compensation no matter the job, then most people would refuse to go into those jobs.

Godnorgosh posted...

nemu posted...

I get that the TC is just s***posting, but if everyone is equal, what incentive is there for people to go into high risk work or work that takes years and years of studying?

Not sure how that answers the question. I'm not a scholar on communism, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the end goal is to have no elites, right? Nobody should be far above anyone else in the social standing. So if that is the case, there cannot be elite high paying jobs, which means there is no incentive for a large amount of people to want to go into those fields aside from those truly passionate about them.

I get that the TC is just shitposting, but if everyone is equal, what incentive is there for people to go into high risk work or work that takes years and years of studying? Is there a job lottery that assigns certain jobs to certain people?

nemu posted...

spikethedevil posted...

Yes bad jokes... about rape, the Holocaust and AIDS yep those aren't very touchy subjects and things you don't tend to joke about on a public forum at all.

Jokes are jokes. People are free to be offended about them, but they should not be grounds for immediate removal. I'm sure they have every contractual right to do so, but I don't think they would have if we weren't in this "action must be taken immediately at the first sign of offense" outrage culture we're living in.

Have you actually read them? They are fucking horrific.

You're free to call them crass and tasteless. That is valid criticism. I don't think that on its own should be enough for immediate removal though. It sets a really bad slippery slope. Those can be pretty much objectively said to be offensive, but I worry that the outrage police will eventually start coming for even more mundane speech.

spikethedevil posted...

Yes bad jokes... about rape, the Holocaust and AIDS yep those aren't very touchy subjects and things you don't tend to joke about on a public forum at all.

Jokes are jokes. People are free to be offended about them, but they should not be grounds for immediate removal. I'm sure they have every contractual right to do so, but I don't think they would have if we weren't in this "action must be taken immediately at the first sign of offense" outrage culture we're living in.

The rape comment reads like a joke, so that's a non-thing. If serious, the little boy thing would be fair to fire him over, but given the rape joke, I would assume it's some kind of dark humor. I would like to know the context of it, if he was replying to someone or something. So unless that pedo comment is his actual opinion on the matter, this is dumb and this outrage culture needs to stop. He should just be able to say "sorry I was being dumb, no harm was meant" and we move on.

Not a fan of multiplayer games in general, so zero hype. Looks like it will be a drab single player experience as well. It feels utterly devoid of soul and one step away from being another battle royal game.

In general, no. In Africa, India, and the Middle East, yes.

This whole "'marginalized' people should be given roles thing" is dumb. The point of movies is to make money. They grab big names in hopes that those big names will correlate into more money. Some random nobody is generally not going to make money, and honestly, I don't think there will ever be a big name trans actor. I don't think there will ever be a big name disabled actor. Unless an already big name actor decides to transition or gets hurt, such actors will likely always be relegated to playing themselves in indy movies.

I wonder how many individual pictures they had to edit together to have that shot.

If she's fit and doesn't have freaky proportions, then yes. For anyone who is just overweight, that's far past the point of being acceptable unless they're on the very tall side.

Except a person has been standing over the trays for hours on end, likely getting their hair and skin follicles all in them.

Yes, it should be acceptable as both a parody and in just in general because society needs to learn to differentiate between something meant to mock an entire race and just literal makeup. There is nothing inherently wrong with any person of any race putting on makeup to make themselves look like another race. The only time it is offensive is if that person is doing a racist caricature of the other race.

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

nemu posted...

Ruvan22 posted...

nemu posted...

cjsdowg posted...

nemu posted...

What indication is there that race has anything to do with it? Nothing wrong with calling out actual acts of racism, but someone having the cops called on them for a stupid reason is not racist.

When it keeps happening to black people over and over .. A pattern starts to he form .

You do realize people get the police called on them for stupid things every day right? Just because a few incidents go viral due to our silly culture of being interested in stupid things does not mean this is some epidemic. This is especially true when people insert race into an incident like this without first establishing a racial motivation. I'm not going to be someone who says racism doesn't happen, but I feel there are many aspects vastly overblown by the media in trying to paint the world as a haven for racists.

Well I used an expired coupon at McDonalds and while the cashier noticed it, got approval from manager to use it, no police were called.
I'm Asian.

If you're actually being serious, the qualifier here is that this particular guy is a moron at the very minimum. You can tell something is wrong with him from how he is shaking. The problem is applying a racial motivation without actually having any proof. If he had A) been known to cause trouble for only black patrons B) used any kind of derogatory language C) been known to associate with some kind of supremacist group, etc then it would not be farfetched to apply a racial motivation to this. But the only qualifier in this situation, from the facts given, is that he, a white person, called the police on a black person for, from the facts given, a very stupid reason. Unless given proper racial motivation, the title should be "man calls police on woman for "expired" coupon" and the story should be that he is a moron.

As a trump delegate, he qualifies by your stated qualifier C.

I truly hope you are just shitposting.

CommonJoe posted...

Stopped reading the topic half way but why the assumption that hes "scared"?

Hes probably just struggling to remain calm. If he was scared hed be calling the cops in the backroom with the door barred.

Fact of the matter is if somebody is going to sit there and get uppity with me to the point of following me around the store over a fuckin coupon id get pissed.

For all we know this dude was being racist calling the cops. But we also know this woman wouldnt let the situation go when shes being told no by a manager no less. At some point shes going to have to accept that and leave. But she didnt.

Even if this guy just ignored her shed eventually have to have the cops called on her if she doesnt leave.

With how much his hand is shaking, he either has some kind of condition, or he's super nervous due to being in an awkward situation. From the way he is speaking, he seems definitely perturbed, but not angry. It could just be all the factors have him stressed out, but that amount of shaking is a bit on the weird side.

Saves obviously. Pretty much infinite possibilities if you're not already near the end of your life.

Dystopian is a bit farfetched, but it does have major issues on free speech going on. That someone would get arrested for a joke/posting "offensive" lyrics while everyone is hush-hush on crimes committed by people of certain backgrounds because it would just be offensive is a bit scary.

These discussions always confuse me. Should the teachers be getting paid millions of dollars, or should the actors and athletes get a throttled salary? In either case, where should the money come from or go? Teachers will probably teach thousands of students over their lifetime. The work of actors and athletes will be be watched by millions and billions over their lifetimes. It's very simple to see why some get paid way more than others.

Ruvan22 posted...

nemu posted...

cjsdowg posted...

nemu posted...

What indication is there that race has anything to do with it? Nothing wrong with calling out actual acts of racism, but someone having the cops called on them for a stupid reason is not racist.

When it keeps happening to black people over and over .. A pattern starts to he form .

You do realize people get the police called on them for stupid things every day right? Just because a few incidents go viral due to our silly culture of being interested in stupid things does not mean this is some epidemic. This is especially true when people insert race into an incident like this without first establishing a racial motivation. I'm not going to be someone who says racism doesn't happen, but I feel there are many aspects vastly overblown by the media in trying to paint the world as a haven for racists.

Well I used an expired coupon at McDonalds and while the cashier noticed it, got approval from manager to use it, no police were called.
I'm Asian.

If you're actually being serious, the qualifier here is that this particular guy is a moron at the very minimum. You can tell something is wrong with him from how he is shaking. The problem is applying a racial motivation without actually having any proof. If he had A) been known to cause trouble for only black patrons B) used any kind of derogatory language C) been known to associate with some kind of supremacist group, etc then it would not be farfetched to apply a racial motivation to this. But the only qualifier in this situation, from the facts given, is that he, a white person, called the police on a black person for, from the facts given, a very stupid reason. Unless given proper racial motivation, the title should be "man calls police on woman for "expired" coupon" and the story should be that he is a moron.

cjsdowg posted...

nemu posted...

What indication is there that race has anything to do with it? Nothing wrong with calling out actual acts of racism, but someone having the cops called on them for a stupid reason is not racist.

When it keeps happening to black people over and over .. A pattern starts to he form .

You do realize people get the police called on them for stupid things every day right? Just because a few incidents go viral due to our silly culture of being interested in stupid things does not mean this is some epidemic. This is especially true when people insert race into an incident like this without first establishing a racial motivation. I'm not going to be someone who says racism doesn't happen, but I feel there are many aspects vastly overblown by the media in trying to paint the world as a haven for racists.

What indication is there that race has anything to do with it? Nothing wrong with calling out actual acts of racism, but someone having the cops called on them for a stupid reason is not racist.

He seems like a douche, but simply saying the word in a context like that doesn't make him inherently racist. Now, given that he dropped the word so easily, he could very well be racist.

Then you pick one and it's not actually as engaging as you thought it would be. It isn't bad, but you just don't click into it like some games. Then you drop it, and now it's added to the pile of half finished games you'll probably never get back to.

None yet, and hopefully never.

UnfairRepresent posted...

nemu posted...

The main problem with any statement about guns is that it ignores that we have hundreds of millions of guns in the US currently. Regardless if we would be better off with or without guns, the guns are here so any discussion on guns should assume they are here and will be here pretty much for the rest of the country's existence.

Rape is going to happen every day for the rest of our lives regardless of whatever anyone anywhere ever does to try and curtail it. It's inevitable.

So by your logic by virtue of that we shouldn't even bother trying?

What a defeatist fellow you are Nemu

Guns are physical items that would be impossible to remove from the country, simply going by the sheer number of them. I'm sure that if you calculated it at 100 guns per second, it would probably take somewhere between a few decades to a few hundred years to collect and destroy them. That doesn't even include the backlash from the citizens should guns be banned. Regardless of one's feelings on the subject, you have to be realistic in terms of what can be done. The removal of guns is an impossibility, so that should not even be attempted. People need to work in the confines of reality, not some imaginary utopia. Your comparison is faulty.

The main problem with any statement about guns is that it ignores that we have hundreds of millions of guns in the US currently. Regardless if we would be better off with or without guns, the guns are here so any discussion on guns should assume they are here and will be here pretty much for the rest of the country's existence.

I'm for it if there is definitive proof of the crime, and the crime is horrible enough.

Nah, it would bring about major troubles and war most likely.

As long as it's imaginary and remains imaginary, let people do what they want. There are people who get off to the idea of people dying, people being gored, goring and killing people, etc. That's about the same spectrum of disturbing fetishes.

Has it led to convictions? It's bad enough if people have been falsely arrested, but extremely horrible if people have been potentially convicted from false evidence to match the arresting narrative

PiOverlord posted...

nemu posted...

2000s, or the people who thought hoverboards would be a thing after Back to the Future.

No because there was no credible evidence of something like that occurring. There is evidence of the rapid advancement of technology today, and once we start getting the simple stuff down, the complex things will start be built on, and soon we will be building our successors.

You're applying basically science fiction to today's standards. Will AI equal to or far superior to the human brain likely exist at some point in the future? Yes. But that future is still likely hundreds of years away. We are in the baby steps of AI still as of right now, and then we'll need decades and decades of development before they can be trusted to do anything to the human body. While I'm sure that self driving vehicles computers are nothing to scoff at, they're basically just being directed to "don't crash into stuff." That is a far cry from all the variables that go into working on the human body.

No. Could a grouping form a cult-like adherence to doctrines stemming from atheism? Sure, but any kind of grouping could do that.

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

How do doctors work in a communist society? There will always be some people who will do it out of the goodness of their hearts, but that is a super small number of people. If everyone is in the same position economically, what incentive is there to spend years and years studying compared to just chilling out in some menial position?

I mean, considering the origins of medical care were unrelated to receiving payment but rather to help keep citizens of your city healthy so that they can work and keep things functioning (like farmers continuing to farm, women not dying in childbirth, soldiers not being ill and unable to defend the premises from a roving gang of bandits), I mean. They did it because they understood there was a need for it in society. Much the same reason people started building permanent structures to live in, because people realized there was a need for it in society and that the benefits outweighed the strain of using temporary shelters or caves for a growing population.

That's on the micro level though. Back when smaller communities were a thing, it would make sense that the community would come together to deal with issues like that. The problem is that now our world is so saturated with people that the kind of caring communities from the past are gone. There is no way in a world with billions of people, in a world where being a doctor is way more complicated than it was in the past, that all the people required to care for the world could do it for basic income.

PiOverlord posted...

16-BITTER posted...

PiOverlord posted...

nemu posted...

How do doctors work in a communist society? There will always be some people who will do it out of the goodness of their hearts, but that is a super small number of people. If everyone is in the same position economically, what incentive is there to spend years and years studying compared to just chilling out in some menial position?

A.I and other machinery will be able to replace many of the jobs we require from our doctors and nurses now. Organic humans will be largely unnecessary.

nemu posted...

PiOverlord posted...

nemu posted...

How do doctors work in a communist society? There will always be some people who will do it out of the goodness of their hearts, but that is a super small number of people. If everyone is in the same position economically, what incentive is there to spend years and years studying compared to just chilling out in some menial position?

A.I and other machinery will be able to replace many of the jobs we require from our doctors and nurses now. Organic humans will be largely unnecessary.

For menial jobs, yes, but we are hundreds of years away from automated doctors. If we're just barely getting to the point of automated driving being commonplace, it will be a while before we can trust a machine to transplant a heart. The best we can do right now is provide machines to help them.

His ignorance of automation's application and limitations would be astounding if I thought this was anything more than a lame gimmick..

You are an organic human, blinded by your own internal superiority complex over all machinery. You refuse to believe your brain is unable to be made in a lab because you believe it is something special, something that is perfect. Humans are soon to be made from metal and wires, not flesh and neurons because that will be the next step of human evolution. You will be made a fool, and you can choose to live with a newfound feeling of inferiority, or decide to live as a free man, being able to fulfill your own desires rather than that of your greedy bosses on top.

You're like the person living fifty years ago who thought the Jetsons would be a reality by the 2000s, or the people who thought hoverboards would be a thing after Back to the Future.

PiOverlord posted...

nemu posted...

PiOverlord posted...

nemu posted...

How do doctors work in a communist society? There will always be some people who will do it out of the goodness of their hearts, but that is a super small number of people. If everyone is in the same position economically, what incentive is there to spend years and years studying compared to just chilling out in some menial position?

A.I and other machinery will be able to replace many of the jobs we require from our doctors and nurses now. Organic humans will be largely unnecessary.

For menial jobs, yes, but we are hundreds of years away from automated doctors. If we're just barely getting to the point of automated driving being commonplace, it will be a while before we can trust a machine to transplant a heart. The best we can do right now is provide machines to help them.

The advancement of technology like A.I is growing at an exponential rate. Don't use linear models to describe where A.I will be. Our brains will be dissected and replicated in a much more advanced, efficient way than we could ever dream of. They will quickly make us obsolete, and it will happen before we even realized they could get that far.

After like ten+ years of existing, Google Translate still has trouble with Japanese. Speech to text and text to speech are still very imperfect. We are not advancing that quickly.

PiOverlord posted...

nemu posted...

How do doctors work in a communist society? There will always be some people who will do it out of the goodness of their hearts, but that is a super small number of people. If everyone is in the same position economically, what incentive is there to spend years and years studying compared to just chilling out in some menial position?

A.I and other machinery will be able to replace many of the jobs we require from our doctors and nurses now. Organic humans will be largely unnecessary.

For menial jobs, yes, but we are hundreds of years away from automated doctors. If we're just barely getting to the point of automated driving being commonplace, it will be a while before we can trust a machine to transplant a heart. The best we can do right now is provide machines to help them.

How do doctors work in a communist society? There will always be some people who will do it out of the goodness of their hearts, but that is a super small number of people. If everyone is in the same position economically, what incentive is there to spend years and years studying compared to just chilling out in some menial position?

Given that humans are inherently greedy, it is the only system that will work for the time being. Expecting humans on the whole to take care of each other without incentive is a pipe dream.

I can understand someone who may want to live their life without the notion of gender affecting them, as impossible as that actually is in practice, but the idea of gender fluidity is the dumbest thing in the world. You're just making a mockery of it at that point.

Can my perfect partner be a wish granting goddess who will grant infinite wishes?

Tyranthraxus posted...

Foppe posted...

The third one is a Future Trunks timeline where Trunks returns to the future and kills the Androids. Cell wakes up, discovers that the Androids are gone, kills Trunks and goes back in time.

How the fuck could Cell possibly kill Trunks without Androids to eat?

He never trained to beat perfect cell because they had the remotes to disable them in that timeline, and Cell got a sneak attack in.

Nothing is ever stated, but it can be assumed him defeating Frieza instead of Goku made Gero react differently compared to in his world.