• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RareGodzilla

  1. I don't think it's inherently the nomads who are at fault. The problem is that the neoliberal system does not invest the extra tax revenue from rich nomads into the local community. In the end only a small circle of landlords and business owners (often foreing owned) make huge profits, from them, while all the locals get are low wage hospotality jobs and higher rents and food prices. 


  2. They actually made a state sponored dating app to help young poeple get to know their potential spouses. 


    I wonder if this is a good Idea. Problem with tinder is that it's not actually in the companies interest to make good couples, it's better for it if we keep coming back. Hence the app ignores personality traits and focuses on looks.

    I honestly have no Idea what my generation will do. It's obvius that we won't have affordable housing. Landlords don't want pets in their units, letalone a child. And then there's preassure at the workplace to not have childern since the employer wants you to commit full time to your work. 

  3. I used to be of a similar opinion as you. Drinking, after all is very unhealthy so there is some logic behind your thinking. However, going through life, I learned that drinking in the proper amounts at the proper time has social value. It helps you relax, it makes you talk faster and more, and the fact that you're drinking and allowing yourself to be vulnerable shows that you trust the person you drink with. That's important for bonding with others. You can say things that would normally not be acceptable, and if you make a mistake, alcohol will soften that mistake. It's understandable that people say silly things when drunk, after all. 

    That being said, you can have just as much fun sober, and even more if you're developed enough. Especially pshychodelic users will learn this as they experience alternative states without the numbness that alcholol brings. But you probably won't be able to be this kind of person if you judge the people you're trying to have fun with.

    Pull the stick out of your ass and have fun :)

  4. Individuals can. You're an individual so that's good news for you. But the masses can never do that. The system depends on an army of poor wageslaves working overtime for penauts. If everyone did this actualized thing with not spending money on stupid shit, eating healthy home cooked food, and doing their best to get ahead in life and the system would colapse. There would be a huge recession since the economy depends on you spending your money on stupid shit and wageslaving your life away.

    You can improve your situation with working hard, but that should not be a valid excuse for the system not growing and improving itself. In fact you should strive for being part of the solution once you manage to get ahead and get some power and influence. 

  5. You need stage orange or at least well developed blue society for capitalism to work. In stage red society it won't work. It's kinda like how USA attempted to enforce democracy on stage red/blue countries like Afganistan. It can't work, people don't want it and they are not ready. 

    Same with socialism, it can't work on a stage red or even blue society. People need a higher stage of development in orded for the system to work, socialism is inherently based on solidarity, if everyone is just attempting to give into the system as little as possible and take as much as possible it becomes impossible for the system to work.

    Even Karl Marx wrote that socialism would come as a step after capitalism. Historic irony had it that socialists only won in semi-feudal countries. 

  6. @Something Funny In a way I agree. It's true that being a hot woman comes with tons of advantages. There's an obvoius advantage to having very high sexual value by mere virtue of your looks. However it comes with a serious downside. Your looks are to some extend luck based. Makeup, fashion, and fitness does a lot, but at the end of a day a 10, wearing a potato sack will be more attractive than a 5 doing her best to look good. Looks also degrade really fast. So I must imagine that loosing your greatest asset in the first third of your life feels kinda lame. 

    As a man there's greater wiggle room to improve. Even an ugly man has insane value if he has status, charisma and personality. And all these you can increase up to 10 with hard work. You can also improve your looks, doesn't help us much, but it's an option. 

    I imagine that it's fair to say that an avrage woman has a better deal in 2023 than an avrage male. However I would rather take my chances with being an avrage looking guy, knowing that I can imrpove my value with hard work.

  7. I think that in the longterm it will free us. We will have time to fish a little in the morning, read some philosophy during the day, and do some painting in the evening. No wagie mcjobs, no hard manual labor, and no silly barista jobs.

    But this is really far away, far beyond our working lives. While technological innovation is fast, it's not that fast. To some extent, automation also creates new jobs, and with an aging population and a lower birthrate, it actually evens itself out.

    Take farming, for example. It took 15 people to harvest the field manually with sicles. Today, it takes 1-2 people to operate the machinery to does that. You'd think that this means that there would be 10 unemployed people for every two people doing harvest. But that's not the case. The farmer no longer has 12 children, and the fact that the modern tractor exists means that there are tons of other jobs needed to build and maintain tractors.

    As far as musicians go, there will be less commercial need for musicians. I wouldn't pay a random artist to make some random background music for a YouTube video if an A.I. could do it just fine for free. But at the same time, A.I. is really far from replacing a live performance. Which is also the place where most money is made in the industry.

  8. On 10. 3. 2023 at 1:11 PM, Danioover9000 said:



       Also, the UK at the time were fed up of immigrants being sent by the EU  to here, So the idea was to cut ties with the EU, and revive the common wealth and trade with other countries. Even renegotiate with the EU on the UK's terms when UK's economy stabilizes and grows.


    This is a good example of the populism that led to Brexit. Migration actually increased post-Brexit. The immigration argument is just a way they scared the normal working people into voting for it. But the economic elites don't actually care what nationality the workers making their profits is.  

  9. I find Brexit a nice example of a collective ego reacting to change. The UK is no longer the colonial empire that it used to be. It's merely a regional power that had to work together with the EU. Being in the EU, certain compromises need to be made. The UK did quite well in the EU. Its geographical position and the very accessible English language combined with the EU common market gave it a really good position within the Union. Despite all the advantages, the fact is that the poorer EU states also get a vote and need to be taken into account. In the EU, the richer countries pay more money into the common coffers compared to the poor ones. This is key to keeping the EU working, because clearly the poorer states can't compete with the developed ones on the free market. The developed states actually profit from this. It would be very hard to export to places like Romania if they don't have developed infrastructure. On the long run, the highly developed states are still better off, but on the short run, it's easy to understand how a random British worker can be manipulated into thinking that the poorer states are just leaching off the UK.

    Despite the UK doing well within the EU, it's still not that hard to understand that it's not that easy to cope with the fact that you're just a piece in the puzzle instead of a great empire. I see Brexit as a natural reaction to that. The UK's political leadership caved in to the demands of the Brexit camp but had no vision as to what exactly a post-Brexit UK would be like. Which has manifested itself in this political crisis of changing leadership with no clear long term goal. The biggest irony is that a move that wanted to give the UK its sovereignty back is making the UK cave to the influence of its former colony, the USA. When they were in the EU, they were bothered by regulations made by the EU parliament, while now the US is making them change their own regulations to suit that of the American market.

  10. I think the host is overgeneralizing the situation. Someone like an artist or a designer can maybe contribute personally to the work and even have a "relationship" with the company's leadership. Since they might have good individual bargaining power, they might not need a union personally. A McDonald's wage slave can only have so much individual input. Unions are very important for these kinds of jobs. Individual barging power of a garbageman is almost 0. However, if all of the garbagemen go on strike, the system stops working. This kind of profession needs collective bargaining.

    The host compares the workplace to a relationship, seeing a union as being unfaithful. But keep in mind that it's important that the power is balanced in a romantic couple. We don't allow 16 year olds to date their teachers because we are aware that it's not a healthy relationship if one spouse has such power over the other. In business, it's only fair that both parties negotiate in good faith on an equal footing.

    I also really don't understand this sentiment that people having more free time and better working conditions is a net negative. Bad health caused by overwork is a net negative for society. Bad relationships caused by a lack of time to socialize are a net negative.

  11. On 31. 12. 2022 at 3:10 AM, Jacob Morres said:

    He moved to Romania intentionally because laws were more lax and then ended up getting arrested there. Happy he's arrested. But it doesnt mean I support the "woke"left 

    It's ironic that the British police, which are supposed to be woke, dismissed all of the rape chat logs, while the Romanian police, which are supposed to be corrupt one, are actually persecuting him for them.

    It just goes to show how often stereotyping is incorrect. In truth, the liberal West also has corruption. Just because it's made legal in the form of lobbying doesn't make it honest.


    3 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

    China's a hyper-capitalist technocratic authoritarian state, and about as far removed from socialism as the United States was during the Gilded Age when Pinkertons were busting worker's heads open for trying to Unionize.

    Calling China a socialist State is frankly an insult to socialism, if socialism is understood as workers having democratic control over the means of production.

    The Revolutionary Vanguardism that brought the 20th century communist parties into power was frankly a betrayal of the democratic spirit of socialism.

    That said, one can give the CCCP due credit for lifting hundred of millions of people out of poverty without conflating thier system with socialism.

    I really recommend the book Governance of China by Xi Jinping. There's even an amateur audiobook on YT. To sum it up, the problem with socialism is that neither Russia nor China were actually ready for it's implementation. Marx envisioned socialism to be a step after capitalism. Historic irony is that socialist revolutions succeeded only in places with mostly feudal economy. Hence socialism had to be built up form from scratch. The economy of USSR wasn't truly socialist. The definition of socialism is the ownership by the workers. In the USSR no factory had direct worker ownership, they were all state owned. The proper term for their economy is state capitalism.  Because the capital was owned by the state, which however can be controlled by the people via the democratic process. 

    The Xi Jinping model is a continuation of Deng's reforms. The idea that if you let private capital build up the productive forces, instead of the state itself. However, at the same time, that private capital is to be under firm control of the party. Making it that once the conditions are in place the state can make the transition towards more socialized economy.

    I can't say weather it will work or not, but like with anything is this world, demonization usually doesn't pay off in terms of truth.


    I would also point out that despite Leo being really fucking smart, he still has an ego and some degree of bias. He's living the American dream; he has his own business. He’s truly free since he’s not forced to have a job like us wagies. It’s fair to say that his awareness of his own bias is higher than most of us here. But I think it’s fair to say he’s beyond bias.



  13. On 6. 12. 2022 at 1:03 PM, asifarahim said:


     Why did Green europeans killed gaddafi and turned libiya into a failed state

    Why did green europeans supply weapons to saudi arabia and support them in their genocidal journey in yemen

    Why do green eurpeans started civil war in syria


    Green eurpeans commited many war crimes in yuguslavia

    Greem europans defeat stage red people in amount of people killed since 2000 . Eurpoe and USA killed more people than all those red and blue people in different parts of country

    Spiral dynamic is not the solution for mankind

    I don't think people making these decisions were stage green. More likley it was an ugly mixture of stage blue US nationalism and xenophobia mixed with stage orange hunger for endless profit by US coorporations, oil lobies and arms supliers.

    Actuall stage green US politicians have pretty much no political power since they are a small minority.

    I think spiral dynamics are a viable model here, but always keep in mind that it's only a model and not reality itself.