NationStates

-Ra- wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:What does a CEO do that "earns" an order of magnitude more money than the people who are the boots on the ground?

Because it's about experience and risk. Any slob can work in an Amazon factory, but it takes a special kind of skill to be a titan of industry like Jeff Bezos. This is why Jeff Bezos is much better compensated than the average slob. This is also why surgeons are paid more than slobs working in Target, because a surgeon requires much more training and much more skill.

-Ra- wrote:

Cordel One wrote:It takes luck and parasitism, not skill.

Amazon is as successful as it is because of Bezos's leadership, and Amazon is a net benefit to society that provides goods cheaply, quickly and efficiently. I'll wait for you to start a Fortune 500 company or study for twelve years to become a surgeon.

But obviously you're not incentivised to do anything of substance with your life, so what's the point?

-Ra- wrote:Who cares what people call you? Most adults just pick themselves up and move along. How does it hurt you to be called a "lispy queer". Only manchildren get angry about stuff like that.

Cordel One wrote:

-Ra- wrote:BIG LOL

Did you read the article or did you just post it thinking you got me? It's about the Marxist theory of how capitalists view commodities and labor.
It's a critique you absolute buffoon

Purpelia wrote:

Liriena wrote:It's not an excuse. It's context. If the argument is that something is inherently wrong with the far left because violence is a necessary means to its ends, it kind of follows that almost all great political movements in human history have at some point had the same problem. It's just that some were so successful in their initial revolutionary violence that they almost never needed to resort to it again.

And our argument is that you are wrong, there is indeed something wrong with the far left because of it. Just as there is something wrong with every ideology that openly espouses goals that can only be met with violence and has supporters who openly hold the view that the ends justify the means.

As far as I am concerned violence is as a tool of politics only permissible if it is literally used to stave off starvation, slavery or something on the same level of existential threat. That is why I for example hold the Russian revolution to be justified. The people were literally starving. At that point it's fine to let some blood flow.

Liriena wrote:Oh... ok, that's reasonable.

Liriena wrote:Anyway, Crowder is a pissbaby bully but, honestly, Youtube was never going to be, like, a comrade in the fight against his bullshit. The best way to make Crowder run and hide in fear is to challenge him to an actual debate between equals... or punch him in the face, if you're a very annoyed union leader.

Des-Bal wrote:

Liriena wrote:Anyway, Crowder is a pissbaby bully but, honestly, Youtube was never going to be, like, a comrade in the fight against his bullshit. The best way to make Crowder run and hide in fear is to challenge him to an actual debate between equals... or punch him in the face, if you're a very annoyed union leader.

According to Liriena Steven Crowder is intellectually superior toJess Herbst, DL Hughley, Naomi Wolf among others.

Your best argument was using violence to suppress dissent, color me shocked.

-Ra- wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:
According to Liriena Steven Crowder is intellectually superior toJess Herbst, DL Hughley, Naomi Wolf among others.

Your best argument was using violence to suppress dissent, color me shocked.

So much for tolerance.

Des-Bal wrote:

Liriena wrote:Anyway, Crowder is a pissbaby bully but, honestly, Youtube was never going to be, like, a comrade in the fight against his bullshit. The best way to make Crowder run and hide in fear is to challenge him to an actual debate between equals... or punch him in the face, if you're a very annoyed union leader.

According to Liriena Steven Crowder is intellectually superior toJess Herbst, DL Hughley, Naomi Wolf among others.

Your best argument was using violence to suppress dissent, color me shocked.

Liriena wrote:?

For someone who's coming in "totally real comedian" Crowder's defense you sure don't seem to get what jokes are.

-Ra- wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:
According to Liriena Steven Crowder is intellectually superior toJess Herbst, DL Hughley, Naomi Wolf among others.

Your best argument was using violence to suppress dissent, color me shocked.

So much for tolerance.

Liriena wrote:Anyway, Crowder is a pissbaby bully but, honestly, Youtube was never going to be, like, a comrade in the fight against his bullshit. The best way to make Crowder run and hide in fear is to challenge him to an actual debate between equals... or punch him in the face, if you're a very annoyed union leader.

Soiled fruit roll ups wrote:

Liriena wrote:Anyway, Crowder is a pissbaby bully but, honestly, Youtube was never going to be, like, a comrade in the fight against his bullshit. The best way to make Crowder run and hide in fear is to challenge him to an actual debate between equals... or punch him in the face, if you're a very annoyed union leader.

I thought advocating violence was a no no here?

Liriena wrote:

Soiled fruit roll ups wrote:
I thought advocating violence was a no no here?

I'm not "advocating". I'm making a joke based on something that actually happened: Crowder provoked a bunch of union guys during a demonstration until one of them retaliated.

Des-Bal wrote:

Liriena wrote:?

For someone who's coming in "totally real comedian" Crowder's defense you sure don't seem to get what jokes are.

I listed three educated and politically active people Crowder has debated with. He tries to debate people and he doesn't seem to wilt when they know what they're talking about.

Your joke was that physically attacking Steven Crowder would be an effective means of defeating him. That is something people say and defend without irony quite often. You're going to have to draw a clearer line between your bad jokes and bad opinions.

Soiled fruit roll ups wrote:

Liriena wrote:I'm not "advocating". I'm making a joke based on something that actually happened: Crowder provoked a bunch of union guys during a demonstration until one of them retaliated.

That wasn't clear.

Des-Bal wrote:

Liriena wrote:?

For someone who's coming in "totally real comedian" Crowder's defense you sure don't seem to get what jokes are.

I listed three educated and politically active people Crowder has debated with. He tries to debate people and he doesn't seem to wilt when they know what they're talking about.

Your joke was that physically attacking Steven Crowder would be an effective means of defeating him. That is something people say and defend without irony quite often. You're going to have to draw a clearer line between your bad jokes and bad opinions.

Liriena wrote:Anyway, Crowder is a pissbaby bully but, honestly, Youtube was never going to be, like, a comrade in the fight against his bullshit. The best way to make Crowder run and hide in fear is to challenge him to an actual debate between equals... or punch him in the face, if you're a very annoyed union leader.

Rusozak wrote:

Liriena wrote:Anyway, Crowder is a pissbaby bully but, honestly, Youtube was never going to be, like, a comrade in the fight against his bullshit. The best way to make Crowder run and hide in fear is to challenge him to an actual debate between equals... or punch him in the face, if you're a very annoyed union leader.

Well of course. Youtube is a business like any other. Supporting social justice happens to be profitable for a usually very liberal target audience. But this is also the same Youtube that pushes conspiracy theory videos and inflammatory comments to the top of lists. Not because they as a company endorse those views, but because it turns heads and gets people to watch more. It's all about views and ad revenue. They're capitalists, nothing more.

Liriena wrote:And yet he has repeatedly chickened out of debating Sam Seder, like many other right-wing grifters.

That's very sweet of you.

Outer Sparta wrote:

-Ra- wrote:So much for tolerance.

Do you support an intolerant guy like Crowder?

-Ra- wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:Do you support an intolerant guy like Crowder?

I support his right to hold his opinions.

And also not to be assaulted.

Liriena wrote:

Soiled fruit roll ups wrote:
I thought advocating violence was a no no here?

I'm not "advocating". I'm making a joke based on something that actually happened: Crowder provoked a bunch of union guys during a demonstration until one of them retaliated.

Liriena wrote:I'm not "advocating". I'm making a joke based on something that actually happened: Crowder provoked a bunch of union guys during a demonstration until one of them retaliated.

Des-Bal wrote:

Liriena wrote:I'm not "advocating". I'm making a joke based on something that actually happened: Crowder provoked a bunch of union guys during a demonstration until one of them retaliated.

You're absolutely advocating, that's why you're characterizing speech as provocation and physical violence in the face of dissent retaliation.

Liriena wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:
You're absolutely advocating, that's why you're characterizing speech as provocation and physical violence in the face of dissent retaliation.

Speech can be provocation, but in that case it wasn't speech. Crowder pushed a guy over.