Board 8 > Freedom, Liberty, Ron Paul - Foolmo thinks he's cool edition [dwmf]

(+) Yeah! (+)

Dude I was reading SMBC far before these topics were even a thing.

And I was referred to that last one by Bob Murphy actually <_<
---

farts again
---

farts violate the NAP
---

Apparently there is a local metal band in Houston named "Mr. Plow"

I don't go to many concerts and I don't really care for metal but I MAY have to support this....
---

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/04/getting-high-on-your-own-supply/

SSC is worried that when Democrats start pretending to want to help the white working class, they may actually want to help the white working class, which he views as bad policy.

Lasa's right, this might not be the smartest guy on the internet.

That'd said, I do like his insight that 96% of people don't read enough internet news to be considered politically active. I fit that profile too. All internet news seeks to do is make people rage. My life's been better without it.
---

Helping white people is usually a bad idea, but of the white people you could potentially help, poor ones are a pretty decent choice!
---

SmartMuffin posted...

farts violate the NAP

I fart while I'm napping all the time
---

hey, i didn't say SSC isn't smart. maybe you can say writing 3000 paragraph articles isn't the smartest thing to do if you're trying to convince people, but...
---

Another thing I find dumb is his assertion that Hillary's campaign was just too gosh darn rational. The only ads for her I ever saw were "lol trumps a racist, vote for me" and "lol trumps a rapist, vote for me". Despite voting for her, I always viewed him as having a clearer plan, even if I didn't agree with it.
---

JDPizza posted...

Another thing I find dumb is his assertion that Hillary's campaign was just too gosh darn rational. The only ads for her I ever saw were "lol trumps a racist, vote for me" and "lol trumps a rapist, vote for me". Despite voting for her, I always viewed him as having a clearer plan, even if I didn't agree with it.

Though one thing I noticed were Hillary's ads used quotes and clips by Trump while anti Hillary ads like the NRA one just made claims with no back up from things she did or say. That struck me as weird.
---

http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/05/rape-not-preexisting-condition-in-acha

None of this is true. Like, not even a little bit. And the fact it's not just being shared by shady social-media activists and their unwitting dupes but by ostensibly-legitimate media outlets is another sad indictment of press standards these days.

Nothing in the new Republican health care bill specifically addresses sexual assault or domestic violence whatsoever. What it does say is that states can apply for waivers that will allow insurance companies, under certain limited circumstances, to charge higher premiums to people based on their personal medical histories—that's it. (States that are granted the waivers must also set up special high-risk insurance pools to try and help defray costs for these people.) Under Obamacare, no such price variances based on preexisting conditions are permitted.

Historically, conditions that could trigger higher premiums or coverage denials have been mostly chronic diseases and syndromes. Some insurance plans also included pregnancy as a preexisting condition, which—contra the current pop narrative—did not mean that any woman who was or had been pregnant would be denied insurance coverage altogether, simply that those applying for new health insurance while currently pregnant might not be eligible for immediate maternity/prenatal care. And for a while, in the 1980s, it was apparently not unheard of for health insurance companies to deny coverage to domestic abuse victims.

By 2009, however, all but eight U.S. states had passed laws directly prohibiting the practice, and as of July 2014, all but six states had.* Even if Obamacare is replaced by the AHCA tomorrow, insurers in 44 states will still be barred by law from considering domestic and sexual abuse a preexisting condition.

Doesn't that mean there's a possibility that those other six states could choose to apply for waivers, and then insurance companies within them could perhaps choose to charge higher premiums for abuse victims? Yes. They also could choose to charge higher premiums for prior victims of car accidents and ingrown toenails. It doesn't mean they will.

A Politifact investigation in 2009 could turn up no evidence that such practices were happening in the then-eight states that would allow it. "Just because it's legal in some states for insurance companies to cite domestic violence as a pre-existing condition, it doesn't mean that insurance companies are actually taking advantage of the loophole," it noted.

#fakenews
---

Since the recent healthcare stuff I've been seeing a lot of posts arguing about the difference between health care, for things that are normal and routine and not risky at all, vs health insurance for actual risks. Removing insurance from insulin for example.

It is THE premier issue in our current system, and I think it will be getting a lot more attention over time. Of course I was ahead of the curve.
---

https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/860648138884792320
---

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/04/news/kfc-colonel-sanders-romance-novel/

god I love capitalism
---

Kenri posted...

Helping white people is usually a bad idea, but of the white people you could potentially help, poor ones are a pretty decent choice!

What in the world is this post?
---

the type of casual racism that has become so common most people dont even notice it anymore
---

nah white people are and will always be HYPER sensitive to any mention of the white race, especially derogatory ones
---

The other day one of my coworkers was asking about moving to Wyoming since it's all white people and brown people are too dangerous (he's currently in Texas)
---

literally Wyoming

lol
---

redrocket_pub posted...

Kenri posted...

Helping white people is usually a bad idea, but of the white people you could potentially help, poor ones are a pretty decent choice!

What in the world is this post?

Shitposting in response to a dumb SSC article?
---

redrocket_pub posted...

literally Wyoming

lol

White supremacy is a powerful motivation
---

if you're into the outdoors Wyoming is dope
---

I mean if you're white lol
---

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/464025717101969408

old but good
---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/05/state-department-announces-extreme-vetting-proposals-for-visa-applicants.html

so it turns out that "extreme vetting" is just the standard "recruiter looks at your FB profile for incriminating pictures" nonsense that job applicants have been putting up with for a decade now

hey terrorists remember to set your profiles to private <_<
---

guess I better delete my "death to America" tweet from 2008
---

http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/05/seattle-mayor-proposes-soda-tax-to-fight

what do you do when someone points out that taxing sugar mostly affects poor black people?

make a new tax on things with non-sugar so that white people suffer their fair share too!
---

Seattle not too long ago imposed a massive tax on guns and ammo sold in the city. It was supposed to raise millions of dollars to fund domestic violence awareness programs.

Almost all the gun dealers closed or moved out of the city. The tax has raised almost nothing.
---

man if we tax crappy food were disproportionately harming the poor and blacks, both through consumption costs and loss of blue collar jobs

but if we tax healthy food were promoting obesity

time to start taxing plaid shirts and Ted talks

or maybe we can implement a voting tax, everyone knows only white people vote

but fuck then democrats will never win again

why is this so complicated ugh
---

We could just kill all the corn subsidies and a lot of the obesity problem would work itself out tbh

That still hurts poor people more though, it just feels less needlessly vindictive than a tax on soda (or cigarettes...)
---

hey but I wear plaid shirts

although last time I was in seattle I was literally called a "frat bro" for wearing plaid, which is an amazing thing to say to a UVA grad
---

hey but I wear plaid shirts

stop appropriating white culture
---

It's not like I'm eating steamed broccoli with a side of mayonnaise
---

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/861109570059599873

yay my home town

by far the worst thing is how deeply convinced they are that they are normal, at least people like Eliot Rodger had the self awareness to admit they are insane
---

Just watched the recent Chappelle special.

Pretty disappointing. Remind me of the mediocre tier Carlin specials. For someone who has a reputation of being crazy and going off the top of his head, it seemed REALLY carefully considered and calculated to be like, just offensive enough to upset the usual SJW suspects, but not quite offensive enough to offend any actual normal person. In many cases it struck me as "crude for the sake of being crude" or "offensive for the sake of being offensive" and there weren't like, many actual funny jokes.
---

I'm holding out for the new one that he's making, hopefully it has a lot more inspired and original stuff.

I enjoyed both specials, but they definitely didn't match his old specials. Or even other specials that he's done recently. The only really powerful joke was the Bill Cosby one I think. But he took essentially his entire first special to deliver just that one joke. It didn't have his masterful efficiency.

Second one had a lot more jokes, and they were nice, but the delivery was the same every time. He would introduce a situation, lead up to the punchline, pause a bit.... then give a subversion of the expected punchline. It was just that one layer, instead of the 5~ layers of subversion in his other jokes. Felt like the same joke multiple times.

It also doesn't help that I heard a LOT of his jokes already in this 4 hour set from 2009, where he WAS going off the top of his head. The jokes are delivered really well good here, but they were way flatter on the special.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLXjcJMIxpk
---

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/05/07/the-day-of-the-censors/
---

so tired of the "wahhh sites censor me this is so terrible" whining.
---

It's crazy how that guy's viewpoint is being censored but he still managed to write a 3000 word article on his website which has been around for years and contains hundreds of other articles espousing his viewpoint and also he's been selling books and doing talks for 25 years
---

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-18288430?SThisFB

They didn't already?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

so tired of the "wahhh sites censor me this is so terrible" whining.

This is a bit insensitive, isn't it? The guy is writing about an existential threat here. If we lose the internet, it's basically game over for freedom. Already most places in Europe will arrest you for posting the kind of stuff antiwar.com posts, and American liberals would definitely impose the same laws if they had the chance.
---

JDPizza posted...

This is a bit insensitive, isn't it? The guy is writing about an existential threat here. If we lose the internet, it's basically game over for freedom. Already most places in Europe will arrest you for posting the kind of stuff antiwar.com posts, and American liberals would definitely impose the same laws if they had the chance.

the government limiting your freedom of speech is a legitimate concern, sure. a man shouldn't be arrested for singing kung fu fighting.

"a website i choose to use deletes stuff i write on there" is not a legitimate concern. when a gamefaqs post of mine gets modded i'm not writing a 3000 word essay about it either.
---

JDPizza posted...

The guy is writing about an existential threat here

You mean the existential threat that has fueled his entire career of book and article writing?
---

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-a-gawker-affiliated-website-made-espn-politically-correct-1494187629

Whitlock one of the few non-psychotic sports journalists left
---

profDEADPOOL posted...

Why is it liberals like John Oliver speaking against net neutrality going away?

You know net neutrality isn't really enforced in the US? It wasn't even a thing at all until just 2 years ago (so all of the history of the internet before 2015 was without any enforced net neutrality), and since 2015, there's been so many legal battles over it that it hasn't really been enforced that much. Tmobile and such are still offering blatantly anti-neutrality policies for example.

Home internet isn't really doing any anti-neutrality, but that's because they have already had a monopoly for decades so they have no reason to change their business model and try promotions like Tmobile. There's some talk of data caps but that has nothing to do with net neutrality despite what fearmongers say.
---

So the argument isn't about net neutrality going away, it's between adding more laws to enforce it, or leaving things how they have been for the past 30 years.
---

Damnit, Smuffin, you know you're the only person who pays for news on the internet. Gimme a summary of that stuff.
---

I saw a Bentley with an Uber sticker this morning. Even if you're 100% black there's no way that's profitable!
---

http://reason.com/archives/2017/05/09/the-prospects-for-progress-in-africa
---

SmartMuffin posted...

http://reason.com/archives/2017/05/09/the-prospects-for-progress-in-africa

"at this rate, by midcentury there will be no oil left on earth"
"at this rate, by midcentury earth's atmosphere will be uninhabitable"
"at this rate, by midcentury automation will take over all labor"

Glad the commenters actually realize this article is making the same economically fallacious (and ignorant of the facts) argument
---