NationStates

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Kowani wrote:You’re not an idiot.
But. Essentially, the point is thus-that unless negative results can be seen and linked to a position, rhetoric will do little to any strongly held position.

Hmm. Maybe. But those weird amazon bots aren't bad results of capitalism, they're more like... bad arguments for capitalism. And y'know what they say, the best argument against something is a bad argument for it.

Kowani wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Hmm. Maybe. But those weird amazon bots aren't bad results of capitalism, they're more like... bad arguments for capitalism. And y'know what they say, the best argument against something is a bad argument for it.

I’m sorry, what?

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Kowani wrote:I’m sorry, what?

The amazon accounts are trying to promote Amazon and make it look good, but they're really only making it look far worse than any anti-Amazon advocate could. The best argument against something is a bad argument for it. QED.

Kowani wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Hmm. Maybe. But those weird amazon bots aren't bad results of capitalism, they're more like... bad arguments for capitalism. And y'know what they say, the best argument against something is a bad argument for it.

I’m sorry, what?

Nakena wrote:

Kowani wrote:You know, if they weren’t really well documented, that would almost be a legitimate point. Almost.

Actually the US supported the Khmer Rogue retaining their seat in the UN during the occupation of Cambodia by Bolshevist Vietnam. (who kicked out Pol Pot because he was too creepy even for them)

Kowani wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:How so?

At the end of the day, you’ve set a gargantuan amount of people into unemployment. Although spreading it out over several decades (if that was possible) does mitigate some of the damage to the overall society, the individual worker is not as benefited.

But coal is not comparable to advertising anyway, due to the vast differences in long-term and multi-species harm that they cause.

…You’re aware of the negative effects advertising has on a society, right?

Kowani wrote:

First American Empire wrote:
I've seen people unironically defend any tyrannical regime you can think of. All of them. Even the one you're thinking is so over-the-top evil that nobody would support them. I've seen people support them.

Who the fuck defends Pol Pot or Idi Amin?

Trotskylvania wrote:

Kowani wrote:Who the fuck defends Pol Pot or Idi Amin?

Oh buddy do I have a surprise for you

Kowani wrote:

Trotskylvania wrote:Oh buddy do I have a surprise for you

And that’s the death of my faith in humanity.

Kubra wrote:Tbf during the Khmer rouges heyday folks did defend them. Y'know, not a lot of info was getting out, all people saw was a red regime in a conflict hotspot, and one supported by China. This was maoism's zenith, so a lot of Maoists orgs toed the line to keep up the terms of their franchise agreement.

Trotskylvania wrote:

Kowani wrote:And that’s the death of my faith in humanity.

Good. now give yourself over to the will of the dialectic

North German Realm wrote:

Kubra wrote:Tbf during the Khmer rouges heyday folks did defend them. Y'know, not a lot of info was getting out, all people saw was a red regime in a conflict hotspot, and one supported by China. This was maoism's zenith, so a lot of Maoists orgs toed the line to keep up the terms of their franchise agreement.

I remember reading some Maoist newspapers that supported this in the period in question. They were a weird read tbh.

Kubra wrote:

North German Realm wrote:I remember reading some Maoist newspapers that supported this in the period in question. They were a weird read tbh.

weirdness and Occidental maoism go hand in hand, think of it as a translation error.

North German Realm wrote:

Kubra wrote: weirdness and Occidental maoism go hand in hand, think of it as a translation error.

It wasn't Occidental, it was in Farsi lol

North German Realm wrote:

Kubra wrote: weirdness and Occidental maoism go hand in hand, think of it as a translation error.

It wasn't Occidental, it was in Farsi lol

Kowani wrote:

First American Empire wrote:
I've seen people unironically defend any tyrannical regime you can think of. All of them. Even the one you're thinking is so over-the-top evil that nobody would support them. I've seen people support them.

Who the fuck defends Pol Pot or Idi Amin?

Kubra wrote:Tbf during the Khmer rouges heyday folks did defend them. Y'know, not a lot of info was getting out, all people saw was a red regime in a conflict hotspot, and one supported by China. This was maoism's zenith, so a lot of Maoists orgs toed the line to keep up the terms of their franchise agreement.

Torrocca wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Poverty is on the decline, yes. Good things take time. The very existence of a middle class is proof enough that capitalism does not act as a stranglehold on wealth.

Poverty's hardly on the decline. And don't you dare pull that "extreme poverty chart" bullshit from the World Bank or whatever.

I want people to be in charge of themselves through individual means, rather than my neighbors deciding what is best for me.

Society isn't a one-way street where you can enjoy the value it gives but then tell it to fuck off when it asks of something from you, bud.

There are enough self-made folk to show how birthright isn't the most important factor.

Self-making your own wealth on the back of other people's labor isn't magically any better than being born into wealth accumulated via the same means.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Poverty's hardly on the decline. And don't you dare pull that "extreme poverty chart" bullshit from the World Bank or whatever.



Society isn't a one-way street where you can enjoy the value it gives but then tell it to fuck off when it asks of something from you, bud.



Self-making your own wealth on the back of other people's labor isn't magically any better than being born into wealth accumulated via the same means.

Things are objectively getting better and the only one not to notice is you.
And for every instance where my actions bring no harm to others, society can politely screw off. Individual rights are paramount. Those who make their own wealth have demonstrated the merit and intelligence to do so.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Poverty's hardly on the decline. And don't you dare pull that "extreme poverty chart" bullshit from the World Bank or whatever.



Society isn't a one-way street where you can enjoy the value it gives but then tell it to fuck off when it asks of something from you, bud.



Self-making your own wealth on the back of other people's labor isn't magically any better than being born into wealth accumulated via the same means.

Things are objectively getting better and the only one not to notice is you.

And for every instance where my actions bring no harm to others, society can politely screw off. Individual rights are paramount. Those who make their own wealth have demonstrated the merit and intelligence to do so.

Torrocca wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Things are objectively getting better and the only one not to notice is you.

Life expectancy and ease of access to schooling is irrelevant to the poverty the overwhelming majority of humanity still faces.

Kowani wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Life expectancy and ease of access to schooling is irrelevant to the poverty the overwhelming majority of humanity still faces.

Ignoring the fact that it’s not irrelevant for a moment, cite that claim on the “overwhelming majority of humanity.”

Torrocca wrote:

Kowani wrote:Ignoring the fact that it’s not irrelevant for a moment, cite that claim on the “overwhelming majority of humanity.”

Here's a handy-dandy thing that cites its sources. The most telling statistic in there is the one that says that "80% of the world population lives on less than $10 a day." Undoubtedly somebody will try to counter with something from the World Bank or something, but those sources only measure extreme poverty, so they're worthless for understanding the reaches of poverty in general.

Kowani wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Here's a handy-dandy thing that cites its sources. The most telling statistic in there is the one that says that "80% of the world population lives on less than $10 a day." Undoubtedly somebody will try to counter with something from the World Bank or something, but those sources only measure extreme poverty, so they're worthless for understanding the reaches of poverty in general.

Alright, so. The actual citation links don’t work (they’re circular), so I can’t really fact check it. But let us assume they are operating in good faith. The number of people in poverty is not quite as important as the rate of decline of poverty. And while I will be the first to say that we have a lot farther to go and we definitely need serious reform, I will also say that poverty (not just extreme poverty but poverty overall) as well as starvation, child malnutrition, general mortality, growth stunting, and disease exposure have fallen for the vast majority of the world.