US lawmakers introduce bill to ban TikTok

[Buyetyen]

What ideas can't they convey if you limit their speech to not include death threats?

I don't even know what you're arguing for anymore.

Seriously what the fuck are you on? Unless I'm in like the top 1% of course progressive policies will benefit me. I can say the same exact for you and probably everyone here that's for progressive policy (because chances are very slim to impossible that this forum is composed primarily of elites). Are you able to actually have a discussion with someone other than trying to one-up them? It's like you would hear someone say they like something you like and instantly be the douche type person who goes "well, I liked it before it was popular."

Progressivism is based on more than just self-interest. There is a philosophy and worldview underpinning it that you so far have displayed absolutely no inclination toward. In fact, I daresay you don't have a coherent political stance outside of what is most immediately expedient for you personally.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Progressivism is based on more than just self-interest. There is a philosophy and worldview underpinning it that you so far have displayed absolutely no inclination toward. In fact, I daresay you don't have a coherent political stance outside of what is most immediately expedient for you personally.

And you can prove you're an ideal progressive and not acting out of self-interest? It's like an impossible thing to prove unless you're an elite because most progressive policy is gonna help the vast majority of people. You don't have a coherent stance because you like whatever thing sounds good vs what it actually does. You're so staunchly against anything that you think would hurt a minority group yet you're for tons of policies that do very much hurt that minority group. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Buyetyen]

You don't have a coherent stance because you like whatever thing sounds good vs what it actually does.

Took longer than I thought to get to, "NO U!!!"

 

[Trunkage]

And you can prove you're an ideal progressive and not acting out of self-interest? It's like an impossible thing to prove unless you're an elite because most progressive policy is gonna help the vast majority of people. You don't have a coherent stance because you like whatever thing sounds good vs what it actually does. You're so staunchly against anything that you think would hurt a minority group yet you're for tons of policies that do very much hurt that minority group. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

*Looks at slavery, capitalism, austerity and nationalism*

You know, most ways to hell is paved with BAD intentions

Anyway, we arent you. If you cant do something for someone else because its the right thing to do without getting a reward, that's a you problem

Many people who have ever worked as nurses, disaster relief response units, child care workers, teachers, waiters, truckers, janitors (essential works generally) act more out of self interest. Their reward is not money because they do not get paid what value they provide

Just because you cant put aside your self interest, doesn't mean others can't

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Not a socialist at all... Those countries I refer to are more capitalist than America...

So, to be clear, you're for nationalized control of many industries related to health, human welfare, and infrastructure, and that makes you more capitalist than people who want those industries to be in the hands of private capital?

What Swedish and Denmark conservative positions do I have a hard on for?

Anything regarding gender and abortion, for starters

 

[Trunkage]

I should say, this whole entire banning Tiktok may be a paved road to hell

You have 5 groups
1) People who are interested in the security of their data, and other citizens. In general, that's you and me here
2) People who are interested in the security of other people's data so they monetise it. Passing this bill is a selling point for how nefarious China is irrelevant of whether China was doing anything to hurt US citizens
3) 'Capitalists' in general but US big tech in particular would like control the market. Because capitalism ends up never being about a free market. It's about banning people from the free market
4) War hawks who just want to prove how big the US dick really is
5) Actual racist who are targeting Chinese people

Make sure that policy fulfills on group 1 ambitions and not the other 4 or this is going to be a shitshow

 

[Phoenixmgs]

*Looks at slavery, capitalism, austerity and nationalism*

You know, most ways to hell is paved with BAD intentions

Anyway, we arent you. If you cant do something for someone else because its the right thing to do without getting a reward, that's a you problem

Many people who have ever worked as nurses, disaster relief response units, child care workers, teachers, waiters, truckers, janitors (essential works generally) act more out of self interest. Their reward is not money because they do not get paid what value they provide

Just because you cant put aside your self interest, doesn't mean others can't

I'm guessing you've seen Second Thought channel on Youtube then as that channel is hilariously bad. Why is capitalism bad and/or created with bad intentions?

The whole self-interest thing is a rather interesting philosophical question. It's pretty impossible to prove on a forum if you do things for self-interest or not (or if it's even possible, the philosophical debate thing). You guys keep attacking your own team so fucking much, it's ridiculous. It's not enough that someone agrees with your progressive policies, they also have to prove they are doing them out of pure altruism too?

So, to be clear, you're for nationalized control of many industries related to health, human welfare, and infrastructure, and that makes you more capitalist than people who want those industries to be in the hands of private capital?

Anything regarding gender and abortion, for starters

I said the countries like Sweden and Denmark are more capitalist than America. Capitalism inherently isn't bad for the 99%.

Sorry that the rest of the world follows science.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I should say, this whole entire banning Tiktok may be a paved road to hell

You have 5 groups
1) People who are interested in the security of their data, and other citizens. In general, that's you and me here
2) People who are interested in the security of other people's data so they monetise it. Passing this bill is a selling point for how nefarious China is irrelevant of whether China was doing anything to hurt US citizens
3) 'Capitalists' in general but US big tech in particular would like control the market. Because capitalism ends up never being about a free market. It's about banning people from the free market
4) War hawks who just want to prove how big the US dick really is
5) Actual racist who are targeting Chinese people

Make sure that policy fulfills on group 1 ambitions and not the other 4 or this is going to be a shitshow

I'm not in any of those groups and TikTok is fucking horrible.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I said the countries like Sweden and Denmark are more capitalist than America. Capitalism inherently isn't bad for the 99%.

Lmao

Sorry that the rest of the world follows science.

I mean, they're adopting those measures against the advice of the vast majority of the medical community, Mr Science

 

[Trunkage]

I'm not in any of those groups and TikTok is fucking horrible.

I think Twitter and Facebook are horrible. Why is our opinions on companies relevant?

Note that this is a buch of social media groups trying to gain more market power. They will say anything to take the competition our. You are being driven to dislike companies for other people's economic and political gains

 

[Cheetodust]

I think Twitter and Facebook are horrible. Why is our opinions on companies relevant?

Note that this is a buch of social media groups trying to gain more market power. They will say anything to take the competition our. You are being driven to dislike companies for other people's economic and political gains

Sure there was a bunch of research done that showed that instagram has serious negative effects on the mental health of young people but how reliable is that, I mean that research was carried out by... The people who own Instagram...

 

[Trunkage]

I'm guessing you've seen Second Thought channel on Youtube then as that channel is hilariously bad. Why is capitalism bad and/or created with bad intentions?

The whole self-interest thing is a rather interesting philosophical question. It's pretty impossible to prove on a forum if you do things for self-interest or not (or if it's even possible, the philosophical debate thing). You guys keep attacking your own team so fucking much, it's ridiculous. It's not enough that someone agrees with your progressive policies, they also have to prove they are doing them out of pure altruism too?



I said the countries like Sweden and Denmark are more capitalist than America. Capitalism inherently isn't bad for the 99%.

Sorry that the rest of the world follows science.

Capitalism is a great economic concept. It is also utopian. It is exactly like Communism in the fact that it has never been tried and never will be tried

Like Nationalism, Communism, any religion or political -ism, Capitalism does not HAVE to have bad intentions. We, as a society, do that. Eg. Nationalism did not have to become anti-immigrant. Society warped Nationalism to be anti-immigrant. Capitlism could have made everyone wealthy but instead we had to have the government come in to stop greed. Christianity (and many religions) have a phrase that goes something like, 'Do onto others as you would like them to do onto you.' Christian (and many religions) then ban homosexuals, etc and THEN wonder why they get canceled... when the cancelling is just the others doing back to Christian how they were first treated by them

None of this should have bad intentions. We place then there.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Capitalism is a great economic concept. It is also utopian.

Yep, it's based on the assumption of a capacity for infinite growth.

 

[Ag3ma]

Yep, it's based on the assumption of a capacity for infinite growth.

Growth could be effectively infinite - within even the Earth's resources, and within a sustainable environmental footprint. Mostly all it would require is heaps of cheap, renewable energy to run an ever-expanding virtual economy.

 

[Kwak]

Growth could be effectively infinite - within even the Earth's resources, and within a sustainable environmental footprint. Mostly all it would require is heaps of cheap, renewable energy to run an ever-expanding virtual economy.

Generating and using free energy will still create extra heat the planet cannot get rid of.

 

[Trunkage]

Yep, it's based on the assumption of a capacity for infinite growth.

I mean, it's based on a lot of assumptions that aren't really real. But you're totally right

You know what's funny. I probably wouldn't think this way if it wasn't for listening/reading Hayek critiques of Communism and central planning. Not that he isn't right half the time (eg. He is way more convincing than someone like contemporary Ayn Rand.) He just never applied the same standard to Capitalism as he did Communism. He's probably rolling in his grave now that I do

 

[Ag3ma]

Generating and using free energy will still create extra heat the planet cannot get rid of.

Probably not significant. The world is not heating up due to the additional heat created by burning fossil fuels and so on, it's heating up because pollution from our current means of generating energy prevents solar energy being removed from the Earth. As long as we drastically reduce this pollution, the Earth should be able to radiate away excess heat.

From what I understand the Sun delivers quite a few of orders of magnitude more energy to the Earth than humans use. I don't think that humanity finding exotic ways to create so much energy that we make a significant difference is anything we need to worry about for an incredibly long time.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Capitalism is a great economic concept. It is also utopian.

Not quite.

Capitalism is a system that exists in the real world. It has an ideological superstructure which proposes various utopian ideas to justify organizing the economy in a way that maintains the power of the powerful (or worse). For example, the idea that charging whatever the market will bear (i.e. what we'd also call price gouging in the most extreme circumstances) leads to an 'optimal' distribution of resources, and so price controls and/or other commerce regulations must not be instituted else they will 'distort' the market, leaving us to fall short of the sacred optimality. That is a utopian idea. In reality it means a rich man's cat has fresh milk while the poor starve. And this is 'optimal'. Something has been optimized in that example, I'll give it that.

But the concept of capitalism was coined by its critics, so it wouldn't really be correct to say that it's a great economic concept or that it is itself utopian. It is also weird to say capitalism is utopian because so much of its defense is the idea that "there is no alternative"-- a dystopian idea if ever there was one, but more to the point the alleged lack of alternatives is not the sort of thing a utopian idea has to say for itself. "No alternative" is closer to "but how would I get new clothing without slavery?"

 

[tstorm823]

But the concept of capitalism was coined by its critics, so it wouldn't really be correct to say that it's a great economic concept or that it is itself utopian.

That is a surprising level of honesty.

 

[Schadrach]

For example, the idea that charging whatever the market will bear (i.e. what we'd also call price gouging in the most extreme circumstances) leads to an 'optimal' distribution of resources, and so price controls and/or other commerce regulations must not be instituted else they will 'distort' the market, leaving us to fall short of the sacred optimality.

The notion being that in a "free market" (note that this isn't necessarily an unregulated market, but rather a market free of unnecessary hurdles to participating or leaving) there being a large profit in "what the market will bear" incentivizes new producers to join the market and increased availability will drive down prices as sellers undercut each other in order to sell product. A lack of supply driving up prices but also a lack of a large profit margin will lead customers to alternative, cheaper products.

Advertising, many types of regulation and intellectual property law all serve to prevent free markets in things that would otherwise approach having them. There are also markets where participation is not optional (for example healthcare) that essentially cannot be free markets no matter what you do.

But yeah, it's utopian largely because once someone starts winning in a space they do whatever they can to pull up the ladder behind them.