Topic: The Pride Movement is the ultimate colour revolution
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 hours 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.
The Africa replied with this 3 hours 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?
The Africa double-posted this 3 hours 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 hours 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 hours 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 hours 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:
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 hours 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.
The Africa joined in and replied with this 2 hours 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.
The Africa replied with this 2 hours 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.
The Africa double-posted this 2 hours 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.
The Africa triple-posted this 2 hours 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 2 hours 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.
The Africa replied with this 2 hours 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?
The Africa double-posted this 2 hours 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.
The Africa triple-posted this 1 hour 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.
The Africa quadruple-posted this 1 hour 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.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour 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.
> 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 1 hour 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 1 hour 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.