Topic: The Pride Movement is the ultimate colour revolution
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 weeks ago #132,598
Encourages the ultimate sin, pride.
Unites all oppression narratives, symbolically represented with the rainbow.
Mild infections will have men getting shit on their dick in godless sex, and metastized neurotics will cut their own dicks off to purify the masculinity from their system.
Environmental movement to kill the economy, postmodernism to kill truth and beauty itself.
Unites all oppression narratives, symbolically represented with the rainbow.
Mild infections will have men getting shit on their dick in godless sex, and metastized neurotics will cut their own dicks off to purify the masculinity from their system.
Environmental movement to kill the economy, postmodernism to kill truth and beauty itself.
The Africa joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #1,415,339
@OP
> Environmental movement to kill the economy, postmodernism to kill truth and beauty itself.
Because AMOC collapse and Florida sinking beneath the Atlantic Ocean from sea level rise are what’s going to save the west.
> Environmental movement to kill the economy, postmodernism to kill truth and beauty itself.
Because AMOC collapse and Florida sinking beneath the Atlantic Ocean from sea level rise are what’s going to save the west.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,340
@previous (The Africa)
Destroying everyone's lives to bail out the people who built their lives at a dangerously low elevation.
Destroying everyone's lives to bail out the people who built their lives at a dangerously low elevation.
The Africa replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,341
I guess technically the Gulf of Mexico, but Florida is the boundary of the Gulf of Mexico so without Florida, what does that really mean?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 33 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,342
@previous (The Africa)
It means the North Atlantic is subsumed by the Gulf of America.
It means the North Atlantic is subsumed by the Gulf of America.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
The Africa replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,343
@1,415,340 (A)
You know, Canada has a population of 40 million people and Europe has a population of 750 million people. London is located at the same latitude as Calgary in Canada. London barely gets below 0 Celsius in the winter and Calgary gets to -30 Celsius. You ever wonder why that is?
You know, Canada has a population of 40 million people and Europe has a population of 750 million people. London is located at the same latitude as Calgary in Canada. London barely gets below 0 Celsius in the winter and Calgary gets to -30 Celsius. You ever wonder why that is?
The Africa double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,345
If the planet keeps getting warmer, it will weaken the ocean currents in the Atlantic Ocean that circulate warm water to Europe. The world will get warmer on average, but if the AMOC collapses, Europe would actually get colder.
The Africa triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,346
There’s the classic cliche about "don’t invade Russia in winter." Russia is the same latitude as Europe, it’s east of Europe, not North of Europe. Europe is a lot warmer than it would be without those ocean currents.
The Africa quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,347
Russia is also a lot larger than Europe, but can only support 140 million people. Europe already has birth rates below replacement. Fossil fuels won’t advantage Europe in the long run. In the long run, if humanity doesn’t stop fighting over fossil fuels for some short term power struggle or whatever ideas you have, there actually won’t be a Europe.
The Africa quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,348
Africa also has a disproportionally small coastline relative to the size of the continent. I won’t bother putting a number on it because of the coastline paradox:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox
But if you look at a map, and you compare Africa to Asia or Europe, the fact that Africa has less coastline should be obvious. This is because Africa wasn’t carved out by glaciers during ice ages because it is too far south to ever have been covered by ice. This has been an economic disadvantage so far, but if sea levels continue to rise, the fact that a smaller portion of the population in Africa lives near the coast when compared with American, European, and Asian cities, it could actually be an advantage because they’ll have less destruction of property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox
But if you look at a map, and you compare Africa to Asia or Europe, the fact that Africa has less coastline should be obvious. This is because Africa wasn’t carved out by glaciers during ice ages because it is too far south to ever have been covered by ice. This has been an economic disadvantage so far, but if sea levels continue to rise, the fact that a smaller portion of the population in Africa lives near the coast when compared with American, European, and Asian cities, it could actually be an advantage because they’ll have less destruction of property.
The Africa sextuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 8 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,349
And don’t just look at a map zoomed out, actually zoom in on the east cost of the United States, zoom in on China’s coastline, then zoom in on the coast of Africa. There’s a really really big difference.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 16 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,350
The Africa joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 24 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,352
@previous (A)
Because where humans decided the prime meridian would be is arbitrary. There was a somewhat obscure / forgotten attempt to create a new system where the prime meridian would go through Washington D.C. to symbolize the United States independence from Britain but it never caught on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_meridians
Because where humans decided the prime meridian would be is arbitrary. There was a somewhat obscure / forgotten attempt to create a new system where the prime meridian would go through Washington D.C. to symbolize the United States independence from Britain but it never caught on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_meridians
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,354
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,356
@1,415,352 (The Africa)
_______________________
=(__ ___ __ _)=
| |
| |
| BRITANNIA TEMPUS |
| |
| IPSUM REGIT |
| |
| |
| |
|__ ___ __ ___|
=(_______________________)=The Africa replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,357
I know that the reason why you brought that up is some sort of insecurity about the British Empire that doesn’t exist anymore. It was only possible for the British to colonize Africa after they’d already become rich off of colonizing the Americas, where 90% of the natives died of European diseases. Then on top of that the British had guns, the Africans didn’t, and back then Africa was also relatively underpopulated. In 1900, the UK had 40 million people compared to what’s now Nigeria which had less than 20 million people. Now the UK has 70 million people with a birth rate of 1.4 births per woman, and Nigeria has 230 million people with 5 births per woman. There never will be another British Empire, the circumstances under which that was possible don’t exist anymore.
(Edited 49 seconds later.)
The Africa double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,360
In the 2050s, Nigeria will probably surpass the United States in population. I’m in my 20s now, so I’ll be middle aged when that happens. It’s not really that far into the future. But Africa probably won’t have rapid economic growth the way China did until their population growth slows down sometime around 2100. Except, if you look at how high Africa’s population will be then compared to Europe, that will actually be worse for Europe than if Africa were to develop and stop growing sooner.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,361
@previous (The Africa)
The US will be making multiple robots per Nigerian birth by then 2050s.
Fleshbag vs Steel.
A bot takes days to weeks to assemble. 20 years of proper care and a meatsack hasnt finished college.
Africa is living in the distant past.
The US will be making multiple robots per Nigerian birth by then 2050s.
Fleshbag vs Steel.
A bot takes days to weeks to assemble. 20 years of proper care and a meatsack hasnt finished college.
Africa is living in the distant past.
The Africa replied with this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,362
The Africa double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,363
If robots replace humans, who’s going to buy the stuff the robots make? Robots?
Overproduction leads to economic downturns.
Overproduction leads to economic downturns.
The Africa triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,364
I guess the problem I have with the utopian idea you have that technology is going to create a society in America that’s superior to society in Africa is that if tech billionaires actually really did have some sort of crazy AI revolution where robots were as smart as humans (I don’t believe in that but you obviously do), the billionaires aren’t going to share the profits with you in some sort of socialist utopia. They’d use that power to create an authoritarian state to control you.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 20 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,365
@1,415,363 (The Africa)
So you think the rich want to give you money in the hope of getting it back?
You think theyd be worse off if they didnt need to pay you, and kept the money the whole time?
The melanin in your brain stops electrical activity between neurons from efficiently signalling.
They will have the land, artificial labor, and raw materials. They don't care if they can sell you consumer goods because that money is with the company that laid you off now. They'll find something they want and sell that instead.
So you think the rich want to give you money in the hope of getting it back?
You think theyd be worse off if they didnt need to pay you, and kept the money the whole time?
The melanin in your brain stops electrical activity between neurons from efficiently signalling.
They will have the land, artificial labor, and raw materials. They don't care if they can sell you consumer goods because that money is with the company that laid you off now. They'll find something they want and sell that instead.
The Africa replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,366
@previous (A)
So, there are two pieces to an economy: supply and demand. You’re completely focusing on supply and ignoring demand. If you could create the magical super intelligent humanoid robot you fantasize about to be your slave and produce endless finished products, who are you going to sell those products to if the robots do all of the jobs?
So, there are two pieces to an economy: supply and demand. You’re completely focusing on supply and ignoring demand. If you could create the magical super intelligent humanoid robot you fantasize about to be your slave and produce endless finished products, who are you going to sell those products to if the robots do all of the jobs?
The Africa double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,367
An interesting consequence of the mechanics of a market economy is that slavery is actually bad for the economy. In your hypothetical scenario with humanoid robots that are as or more intelligent than humans, that’s basically analogous to when whites used to enslave blacks in the United States. So in a way, we’ve already done that experiment before and seen what the results were. The northern states didn’t have slavery, while the southern states did. But the north won the civil war because the north had a superior economy. When you pay your workers, your workers can buy products from firms. The American economy is driven by consumer spending. If you don’t have consumer spending you don’t have an economy, you’re just losing money on over production. Since the slaves in the south we’re humans who were working but didn’t receive a salary they could use to buy goods and services, that was actually an economic inefficiency.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
The Africa triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,368
Except the difference between slavery in the South and what your idea is, is you think robots will replace everybody. In the South, there were still poor whites who don’t own slaves who worked for a salary. In a hypothetical scenario where the United States only has humanoid robots producing products, and a high unemployment rate because the robots took everybody else’s jobs, the only way for firms to make money would be to export. But you can only export to other parts of the world if other parts of the world can afford to buy the products.
This is basically a long winded way of saying that your whole white supremaicst worldview is ironically the fastest possible way to destroy the west but you’re too stupid and prideful to realize it on your own.
This is basically a long winded way of saying that your whole white supremaicst worldview is ironically the fastest possible way to destroy the west but you’re too stupid and prideful to realize it on your own.
The Africa quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,369
Also if you’re wondering why 70% of the US GDP is consumer spending, if you’d assume that people can only buy products that somebody else made, so how can it be over 50%? The reason is because everything is made in China. The United States would not be able to manufacture the robots you’re imagining on its own. In fact, China couldn’t either. No country actually could.
The Africa quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,370
This is also part of the reason why tariffs are stupid.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,371
@1,415,366 (The Africa)
No, I didnt ignore demand, I said they'd sell whatever products the people who keep the money instead of paying you want to buy.
The money doesnt disappear, whoever owns it instead of the laid off employee will also be spending it.
Industrialists can trade between each other, they dont need you to make it work.
No, I didnt ignore demand, I said they'd sell whatever products the people who keep the money instead of paying you want to buy.
The money doesnt disappear, whoever owns it instead of the laid off employee will also be spending it.
Industrialists can trade between each other, they dont need you to make it work.
The Africa joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,372
@previous (A)
There are a lot fewer industrialists than there are workers. That would lead to a much smaller GDP.
There are a lot fewer industrialists than there are workers. That would lead to a much smaller GDP.
The Africa double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,373
@1,415,371 (A)
> The money doesnt disappear, whoever owns it instead of the laid off employee will also be spending it.
Money has no intrinsic value. The reason why a dollar is worth something is because everybody believes that it is and the government guarantees that there will be a stable supply of dollars and that these dollars can be exchanged as legal tender for goods and services. If most people don’t earn money in a society, then holding large amounts of fiat currency would become worthless.
> The money doesnt disappear, whoever owns it instead of the laid off employee will also be spending it.
Money has no intrinsic value. The reason why a dollar is worth something is because everybody believes that it is and the government guarantees that there will be a stable supply of dollars and that these dollars can be exchanged as legal tender for goods and services. If most people don’t earn money in a society, then holding large amounts of fiat currency would become worthless.
The Africa triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,374
You’re also incorrect that they’d still be spending it. If someone has a net worth of say a hundred billion dollars, that’s a hundred billion dollars that’s not being spent on anything, because if they spent that hundred billion dollars, then they wouldn’t have a hundred billion dollars. So you’re wrong about that.
The Africa quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,375
People who are living paycheck to paycheck spend almost all if not all of the money that they make. People who are wealthy don’t do that. They’re like black holes.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
The Africa quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,376
The other thing about this that is dumb is you’re not one of the billionaires who owns a tech company so you wouldn’t benefit from this at all.
The Africa joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,398
Also the statement that "America will produce more robots than Nigeria will produce people" is unreasonable. The United States has 340 million people, and Nigeria has 230 million people with a birth rate of 5 children per woman. If women are half the population that means there are 115 million Nigerian women, if they can each be expected to have 5 children, that’s 575 million children. Now obviously, not all women in Nigeria are pre menopausal and some women will die before they have children and some children will die before they reach adulthood and the birth rate will decline over time and not every woman will have children and those who do will not all have children literally at the same time. So more than likely 400 million is a better estimate of the population of Nigeria in 2050. That means the United States would have to produce at least 170 million robots in the next 24 years in order to produce more humans than Nigeria will in the next 24 years. That means you’d imagine 50% of the population of the United States owning a robot. Right now there are about 400,000 industrial robots in the United States, so you’re betting on the United States producing 425 times as many robots as we currently have. Assuming that the magical human intelligence level humanoid robots you’re imagining are at least as difficult and expensive to produce as industrial robots, new industrial robots cost between $50,000 and $100,000, the average annual salary in the United States is around $60,000 meaning people would either have to take out loans or expect to make more than they spend off of their robot -
This isn’t reasonable.
This isn’t reasonable.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,399
@1,415,372 (The Africa)
If a company lays of 5 employees at $50,000 salary each then $250,000 is subtracted from the employees spending. $250,000 is added to what the employer can now spend on something else.
The amount lost is equal to the amount gained, GDP wouldn't change.
And again, why should they care if those former employees are doing well? They have the wealth to trade anongst themselves, you still havent given one reason they need those employees involved once they can automate them.
If a company lays of 5 employees at $50,000 salary each then $250,000 is subtracted from the employees spending. $250,000 is added to what the employer can now spend on something else.
The amount lost is equal to the amount gained, GDP wouldn't change.
And again, why should they care if those former employees are doing well? They have the wealth to trade anongst themselves, you still havent given one reason they need those employees involved once they can automate them.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,400
@1,415,374 (The Africa)
@1,415,375 (The Africa)
If they dont spend the money it has a deflationary effect that increases the purchasing power of the money that isnt being soent by others.
Once again, if this did so as you said, and GDP fell, why should they care? They still have their land, robotic labor, and productice capacity. They can still trade amongst themselves.
They aren't going to rehire people just to give them money in the hope they get it back. That adds no value to their businesses.
@1,415,375 (The Africa)
If they dont spend the money it has a deflationary effect that increases the purchasing power of the money that isnt being soent by others.
Once again, if this did so as you said, and GDP fell, why should they care? They still have their land, robotic labor, and productice capacity. They can still trade amongst themselves.
They aren't going to rehire people just to give them money in the hope they get it back. That adds no value to their businesses.
The Africa replied with this 3 weeks ago, 53 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,401
@1,415,399 (A)
Accounting profit is revenue minus total costs. If there aren’t consumers who can afford to buy your product, you aren’t making revenue, you’re over producing, and you will begin operating at a loss because profit will be negative.
Accounting profit is revenue minus total costs. If there aren’t consumers who can afford to buy your product, you aren’t making revenue, you’re over producing, and you will begin operating at a loss because profit will be negative.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 17 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,402
@1,415,376 (The Africa)
I never said I'd benefit, once again thats a strawman you made up because you cant follow a conversation even when you have the posts available to read wheneve you want.
I never said I'd benefit, once again thats a strawman you made up because you cant follow a conversation even when you have the posts available to read wheneve you want.
The Africa replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,403
@previous (A)
I just find it stupid that you want something to happen to feel superior to me when it would disadvantage you as much as it would disadvantage me. You obviously don’t have any knowledge of economics which is why you resorted to racist insults about melanin in my brain, which also shows you don’t understand biology or know what melanin is or what its function is. Unless you’re an albino with white hair, your body produces some amount of melanin.
I just find it stupid that you want something to happen to feel superior to me when it would disadvantage you as much as it would disadvantage me. You obviously don’t have any knowledge of economics which is why you resorted to racist insults about melanin in my brain, which also shows you don’t understand biology or know what melanin is or what its function is. Unless you’re an albino with white hair, your body produces some amount of melanin.
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
The Africa double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,404
Have you ever even taken economics?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,405
@1,415,401 (The Africa)
If your business is focused on selling products to regular people, yes you could go out of business.
Businesses die all the time.
Regardless, the land and robots and raw materials will still exist, and the people who control those can get whatever they want by trading with others in the same position.
One industrialist buys agriculture equiptment from the market, and sells food to the other industrialists. Another trades cars for medical services. Another builds luxury homes in exchange for foreign trips and cruises.
What are they missing that they need workers for? Why should they care if GDP does go down when they can automatically produce and trade whatever they need?
If your business is focused on selling products to regular people, yes you could go out of business.
Businesses die all the time.
Regardless, the land and robots and raw materials will still exist, and the people who control those can get whatever they want by trading with others in the same position.
One industrialist buys agriculture equiptment from the market, and sells food to the other industrialists. Another trades cars for medical services. Another builds luxury homes in exchange for foreign trips and cruises.
What are they missing that they need workers for? Why should they care if GDP does go down when they can automatically produce and trade whatever they need?
The Africa replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,406
@previous (A)
What kind of argument are you even making here? You’re saying it’s okay if the American GDP goes down and the United States has an extremely high unemployment rate as long as billionaires are able to buy 170 million humanoid robots to produce products that less than 1% of the population will buy? That doesn’t make any fucking sense!
What kind of argument are you even making here? You’re saying it’s okay if the American GDP goes down and the United States has an extremely high unemployment rate as long as billionaires are able to buy 170 million humanoid robots to produce products that less than 1% of the population will buy? That doesn’t make any fucking sense!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,407
@1,415,403 (The Africa)
> I just find it stupid that you want something to happen to feel superior to me when it would disadvantage you as much as it would disadvantage me.
I said they dont need workers after they automate, everything else is a strawman you made up.
> You obviously don’t have any knowledge of economics
Economics deals with distributing scarce resources. They people in control of those resources dont need workers after automation.
It's an uncomfortable truth, but no one can give any reason why paying workers would be necessary.
Insisting regular people are required, and that it would all collapse without them is a cope. The machine doesnt care if those people thrive or die.
> I just find it stupid that you want something to happen to feel superior to me when it would disadvantage you as much as it would disadvantage me.
I said they dont need workers after they automate, everything else is a strawman you made up.
> You obviously don’t have any knowledge of economics
Economics deals with distributing scarce resources. They people in control of those resources dont need workers after automation.
It's an uncomfortable truth, but no one can give any reason why paying workers would be necessary.
Insisting regular people are required, and that it would all collapse without them is a cope. The machine doesnt care if those people thrive or die.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 33 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,408
Well yes because the flag has all the colors on it.
The Africa replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,409
You have this dumb obsession with the people who have more deserving more simply because they have more like you think the rest of humanity is just going to die off until nobody but the richest person in the world is left by themself. That’s obviously not going to happen. Wealth inequality can only get to a certain point before the vast majority of people realize that the fastest way to double their income is to kill 1% of the population.
The Africa double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 16 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,410
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 44 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,411
@1,415,406 (The Africa)
Then explain why it doesn't make sense.
If the people controlling resources can make and trade what they need, why would the system collapse?
You're acting like the regular people are necessary, but what they offer is being automated. Humans are becoming more obsolete by the day.
Nations can extract resources, produce and move goods, and fight wars with an economy that is fueled by robotics. Humans are more expensive, slower, and lower performance- they aren't necessary.
Then explain why it doesn't make sense.
If the people controlling resources can make and trade what they need, why would the system collapse?
You're acting like the regular people are necessary, but what they offer is being automated. Humans are becoming more obsolete by the day.
Nations can extract resources, produce and move goods, and fight wars with an economy that is fueled by robotics. Humans are more expensive, slower, and lower performance- they aren't necessary.
The Africa replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,412
@1,415,407 (A)
> Insisting regular people are required, and that it would all collapse without them is a cope. The machine doesnt care if those people thrive or die.
Doomer take. Are you secretly a Marxist and you’re advocating for capitalist accelerationism to bring on the socialist utopia faster? I can’t see why anybody who’s not mentally ill would have the same kind of obsessions that you have. It’s like you want to create the maximum amount of suffering for the maximum number of people or something. All your takes are so braindead.
> Insisting regular people are required, and that it would all collapse without them is a cope. The machine doesnt care if those people thrive or die.
Doomer take. Are you secretly a Marxist and you’re advocating for capitalist accelerationism to bring on the socialist utopia faster? I can’t see why anybody who’s not mentally ill would have the same kind of obsessions that you have. It’s like you want to create the maximum amount of suffering for the maximum number of people or something. All your takes are so braindead.
The Africa double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 40 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,413
@1,415,411 (A)
> Then explain why it doesn't make sense.
I already did in great detail. You’re just too stupid to understand what I wrote I guess.
> Then explain why it doesn't make sense.
I already did in great detail. You’re just too stupid to understand what I wrote I guess.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,415
@1,415,408 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Right, thank you.
@1,415,409 (The Africa)
> You have this dumb obsession with the people who have more deserving more simply because they have more
No, I never said that, thats another strawman. Are you incapable of avoiding such an easily identifiable fallacy?
All I said is this can happen if the industrialists want it to.
Of course they could be charitable and share, but nothing would require them to.
> like you think the rest of humanity is just going to die off until nobody but the richest person in the world is left by themself. That’s obviously not going to happen.
It could easily happen, which is why you just say its obvious without explaining why those regular people are necessary.
> Wealth inequality can only get to a certain point before the vast majority of people realize that the fastest way to double their income is to kill 1% of the population.
A regular person can't fight back against advanced, automated weaponry and surveilance systems.
In the past the 1% had to keep the people working because full automation was feasible at the time.
Now they are close to automating most everything, and advanced crowd control technology makes stopping riots easier than ever.
Right, thank you.
@1,415,409 (The Africa)
> You have this dumb obsession with the people who have more deserving more simply because they have more
No, I never said that, thats another strawman. Are you incapable of avoiding such an easily identifiable fallacy?
All I said is this can happen if the industrialists want it to.
Of course they could be charitable and share, but nothing would require them to.
> like you think the rest of humanity is just going to die off until nobody but the richest person in the world is left by themself. That’s obviously not going to happen.
It could easily happen, which is why you just say its obvious without explaining why those regular people are necessary.
> Wealth inequality can only get to a certain point before the vast majority of people realize that the fastest way to double their income is to kill 1% of the population.
A regular person can't fight back against advanced, automated weaponry and surveilance systems.
In the past the 1% had to keep the people working because full automation was feasible at the time.
Now they are close to automating most everything, and advanced crowd control technology makes stopping riots easier than ever.
The Africa replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,416
I see you’re doing the thing again where you just quote random things I said frantically to distract from what I’m saying. Anybody reading this can clearly see that you’re making a bad argument.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 19 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,417
@1,415,412 (The Africa)
I never said it was good, thats something you made up in your head to avoid engaging with what I actually said: that is could easily happen.
I'm going to leave this convo for a while since you are unable to stop using strawmen arguments in every post you make.
I never said it was good, thats something you made up in your head to avoid engaging with what I actually said: that is could easily happen.
I'm going to leave this convo for a while since you are unable to stop using strawmen arguments in every post you make.
The Africa replied with this 3 weeks ago, 31 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,418
@1,415,415 (A)
> A regular person can't fight back against advanced, automated weaponry and surveilance systems.
Ah, so great, you want to live in a totalitarian state. Fantastic. 🙄
Wtf is wrong with you?
> A regular person can't fight back against advanced, automated weaponry and surveilance systems.
Ah, so great, you want to live in a totalitarian state. Fantastic. 🙄
Wtf is wrong with you?
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
The Africa double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 57 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,420
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 27 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,421
@1,415,413 (The Africa)
Saying GDP would go down because industrialists buy less doesnt explain why those industrialists would care at the point.
Not that I agree anyway, we can see that billionares still reinvest money, and they spend lavishly when they have that much.
But even if they sat on the cash, what part of the system do you think is going to break?
Saying GDP would go down because industrialists buy less doesnt explain why those industrialists would care at the point.
Not that I agree anyway, we can see that billionares still reinvest money, and they spend lavishly when they have that much.
But even if they sat on the cash, what part of the system do you think is going to break?
The Africa replied with this 3 weeks ago, 21 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,422
I knew you were dumb I didn’t realize you were one of those AI cultists.
The Africa double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 21 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,423
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 59 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,424
@1,415,416 (The Africa)
You just keep saying regular people are necessary, saying its obvious, but none of the points you actually make are complete:
Why do they care if GDP goes down?
How do millions sinking into poverty affect them if they dont need those people for labor?
You cant answer a direct question, no matter how many times I try to follow up on your own points.
You just keep saying regular people are necessary, saying its obvious, but none of the points you actually make are complete:
Why do they care if GDP goes down?
How do millions sinking into poverty affect them if they dont need those people for labor?
You cant answer a direct question, no matter how many times I try to follow up on your own points.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,425
@1,415,420 (The Africa)
I didnt argue "for" it, I just said it could happen.
You keep making this same exact strawman argument, even though I've never said it.
For the Nth time: I didn't say it was good. Just that it could happen and not collapse.
I didnt argue "for" it, I just said it could happen.
You keep making this same exact strawman argument, even though I've never said it.
For the Nth time: I didn't say it was good. Just that it could happen and not collapse.
The Africa replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,426
@1,415,424 (A)
I already told you, you’re not reading what I’m writing because you want to distract from my point by frantically posting questions and quoting me before I can actually respond. You’re not good at debating. Re read what I wrote I already fucking told you moron.
I already told you, you’re not reading what I’m writing because you want to distract from my point by frantically posting questions and quoting me before I can actually respond. You’re not good at debating. Re read what I wrote I already fucking told you moron.
The Africa double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 27 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,427
@1,415,409 (The Africa)
> You have this dumb obsession with the people who have more deserving more simply because they have more like you think the rest of humanity is just going to die off until nobody but the richest person in the world is left by themself. That’s obviously not going to happen. Wealth inequality can only get to a certain point before the vast majority of people realize that the fastest way to double their income is to kill 1% of the population.
READ WHAT I FUCKING WROTE!
> You have this dumb obsession with the people who have more deserving more simply because they have more like you think the rest of humanity is just going to die off until nobody but the richest person in the world is left by themself. That’s obviously not going to happen. Wealth inequality can only get to a certain point before the vast majority of people realize that the fastest way to double their income is to kill 1% of the population.
READ WHAT I FUCKING WROTE!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 11 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,428
@1,415,422 (The Africa)
@1,415,423 (The Africa)
More personal insults because you are unable to explain at all why it would collapse.
You keep avoiding the central topic and doing a anything to change the subject, so goodbye.
@1,415,423 (The Africa)
More personal insults because you are unable to explain at all why it would collapse.
You keep avoiding the central topic and doing a anything to change the subject, so goodbye.
The Africa replied with this 3 weeks ago, 26 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,429
@previous (A)
I’m calling you an idiot because you’re being an idiot. You’re asking me stupid questions.
I’m calling you an idiot because you’re being an idiot. You’re asking me stupid questions.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 56 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,430
@1,415,426 (The Africa)
@1,415,427 (The Africa)
I did respond to what you wrote, asking why the industrialists should care about GDP going down, and you never answered. I asked several more times, and you avoided the question.
Saying you answered, when you stopped the conversation there, is disingenuous. This isnt hard, goodbye.
@1,415,427 (The Africa)
I did respond to what you wrote, asking why the industrialists should care about GDP going down, and you never answered. I asked several more times, and you avoided the question.
Saying you answered, when you stopped the conversation there, is disingenuous. This isnt hard, goodbye.
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
The Africa replied with this 3 weeks ago, 39 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,431
Technological superiority in weapons does not mean that the workers can’t fight against the ruling elite. There’s a reason why Africa isn’t still under the control of Europeans for example.
The Africa double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 24 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,432
@1,415,430 (A)
I never answered because why would I answer when I already fucking told you why before you asked me the question? It’s fucking annoying.
I never answered because why would I answer when I already fucking told you why before you asked me the question? It’s fucking annoying.
The Africa triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 16 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,433
I’m done with talking to you.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 53 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,434
@1,415,429 (The Africa)> Sure all their needs are met, and they control all the resources, but this number will go down!
> No I can't tell you why that matters, let me change the subject over and over and call you names!
Bye!
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
The Africa joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,443
The greatest economic argument of all time:
"White people are superior to black people because white people came up with this fantastic new idea, let’s make GDP go DOWN instead of up!"
"White people are superior to black people because white people came up with this fantastic new idea, let’s make GDP go DOWN instead of up!"
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 20 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,457
@1,415,339 (The Africa)
> > Environmental movement to kill the economy, postmodernism to kill truth and beauty itself.
>
> Because AMOC collapse and Florida sinking beneath the Atlantic Ocean from sea level rise are what’s going to save the west.
Future wars will be for control of what we consider givens and basics: Power, water, food, and maybe a place within the future “reserved compounds” for essential workers while everything else crumbles. Within 20-30 years.
> > Environmental movement to kill the economy, postmodernism to kill truth and beauty itself.
>
> Because AMOC collapse and Florida sinking beneath the Atlantic Ocean from sea level rise are what’s going to save the west.
Future wars will be for control of what we consider givens and basics: Power, water, food, and maybe a place within the future “reserved compounds” for essential workers while everything else crumbles. Within 20-30 years.
Anonymous I double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,459
I’ll also add massive waves of unprecedented global migration from dead and flood zones, disappearing islands, and new deserts.
The security and political problems this will cause haven’t been calculated. Look at Syria and Iran due to drought. Look to the Bronze Age Collapse and the rapid dissolution of three Mediteranean hegemons. Look to escalating conflict in the Sahel.
The security and political problems this will cause haven’t been calculated. Look at Syria and Iran due to drought. Look to the Bronze Age Collapse and the rapid dissolution of three Mediteranean hegemons. Look to escalating conflict in the Sahel.
The Africa replied with this 3 weeks ago, 9 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,462
@previous (I)
I hope you’re not right about societal collapse, but I don’t think you’re wrong either.
I hope you’re not right about societal collapse, but I don’t think you’re wrong either.
The Africa double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,463
I think we could do stuff to avoid societal collapse. Nobody’s really doing it though.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,470
@previous (The Africa)
> I think we could do stuff to avoid societal collapse. Nobody’s really doing it though.
Absolutely. “Leaders” would rather be on the right side of their voters’ feelings with soft cultural issues.
I don’t believe in a Mad Max collapse. There’s always some kind of authority. Just not one most people would prefer to live under - militarized, feudal, compulsory, with extensive badlands beyond their reach.
If you look at world freshwater consumption it exceeds replenishment. Turkey will use up its aquifers. Iran’s are dangerously low. Maybe someone will get together and begin to drain the seas with more desalination but that’s expensive and works in an Israel because it’s a small land mass that doesn’t require as much piping.
Hell, the Colorado River is being dangerously depleted.
> I think we could do stuff to avoid societal collapse. Nobody’s really doing it though.
Absolutely. “Leaders” would rather be on the right side of their voters’ feelings with soft cultural issues.
I don’t believe in a Mad Max collapse. There’s always some kind of authority. Just not one most people would prefer to live under - militarized, feudal, compulsory, with extensive badlands beyond their reach.
If you look at world freshwater consumption it exceeds replenishment. Turkey will use up its aquifers. Iran’s are dangerously low. Maybe someone will get together and begin to drain the seas with more desalination but that’s expensive and works in an Israel because it’s a small land mass that doesn’t require as much piping.
Hell, the Colorado River is being dangerously depleted.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,489
Tucker will save us!
The Africa joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,490
@1,415,470 (J)
I think the American Great Lakes and the African Great Lakes will probably important eventually as a source of freshwater.
I think the American Great Lakes and the African Great Lakes will probably important eventually as a source of freshwater.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 23 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,625
@1,415,443 (The Africa)
So you still cant explain why GDP would matter to industrialists who control all the land, (robo)labor, and resources?
Do you think that in the midst of having all the power and resources they'd break down in grief because some old obsolete metric stopped going up?
So you still cant explain why GDP would matter to industrialists who control all the land, (robo)labor, and resources?
Do you think that in the midst of having all the power and resources they'd break down in grief because some old obsolete metric stopped going up?