It's ok to be angry about capitalism

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,275
6,751
118
Country
United States
Subsidise the mining companies. Sometimes mining towns, usually companies.

Another thing to be annoyed at, there's no money for R&D for making coal power more efficient. Because we should stop using coal for power, which is fair enough...but then that doesn't happen, we still use coal for power, and it would be better if the research was done to make it cheaper, more efficient and less polluting, but that's not happening.
That's because we *have* cheaper, more efficient, and less polluting. It's "everything besides coal"

Seriously, the only reason we subsidize coal is literally identity politics. It's pathetic
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,888
1,763
118
Country
United Kingdom
Subsidise the mining companies. Sometimes mining towns, usually companies.
Looking back to the effects of sudden cuts to mining subsidies in the UK this is somewhat understandable, but also seems kind of useless without corresponding investment in building up the economies of coal mining areas to make them more resilient and less dependent on coal in the long term, otherwise you're just delaying the pain.

Another thing to be annoyed at, there's no money for R&D for making coal power more efficient.
There is. In fact, it's something the fossil fuel industry has invested heavily in, performatively or otherwise. The problem is that you're adding complexity and cost to a technology whose only advantage is being cheap and simple, and that raises the question of why bother when you could just invest that money in renewable energy or nuclear or literally anything else.

Because at that point it's ultimately the same challenge. "Clean coal" isn't economically viable, so we need to bring down costs and build an economy of scale to make it economically viable.. except that's the same reason, and the same solution, as to why we're not using any of the alternatives available. The more you build something, the more infrastructure and industry is set up to support it, the cheaper it gets. In many countries, renewable energy is now economically viable and indeed competitive because those countries have been investing in it for decades now. US Republicans soyfacing over clean coal is just attempting to retrospectively justify the poor decision to keep investing in fossil fuels over alternatives.
 
Last edited:

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,497
3,489
118
Looking back to the effects of sudden cuts to mining subsidies in the UK this is somewhat understandable, but also seems kind of useless without corresponding investment in building up the economies of coal mining areas to make them more resilient and less dependent on coal in the long term, otherwise you're just delaying the pain.
True, though that's the same with all industries. Though, mining in many places of the UK is a generational thing which is somewhat unusual compared to many newer industries.

There is. In fact, it's something the fossil fuel industry has invested heavily in, performatively or otherwise. The problem is that you're adding complexity and cost to a technology whose only advantage is being cheap and simple, and that raises the question of why bother when you could just invest that money in renewable energy or nuclear or literally anything else.
Going to disagree with you there, (my father is not long retired from energy sciences in CSIRO and gripes about this) Though, he wasn't talking about "clean coal" or any magic solutions like that, just increasing the efficiency of existing systems. By no means a long term solution, but it's something while people sit around and delay the long term solution anyway.
 

XsjadoBlaydette

Piss-Drinking Nazi Wine-Mums
May 26, 2022
953
1,265
98
Country
Wales

Summary about big boi countries swinging their economic fuckery around smaller ones when they catch the glimmer of profitable resources, interview with The Jakarta Method author Vincent Bevins.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,718
766
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Of course, you're the one most frequently insisting something is racist (affirmative action). So prove your claim.
It literally discriminates against a races of people.

Lotta people say different. Not that it matters, you already disagree with them so they're wrong. Nothing's racist as long as you can find one slightly official looking YouTuber saying so
So you have no actual stats on car insurance rates being racist then?
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,718
766
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Already reported as allegations. But you reckon they aren't, so they aren', no evidence necessary
Just saying black people pay more for car insurance doesn't make it racist, does a white person living in that same neighborhood pay the same price for the same type of car? There's more black people in the NBA, that doesn't make it racist. There's more white people in the NHL, that doesn't make it racist.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,275
6,751
118
Country
United States
Just saying black people pay more for car insurance doesn't make it racist, does a white person living in that same neighborhood pay the same price for the same type of car? There's more black people in the NBA, that doesn't make it racist. There's more white people in the NHL, that doesn't make it racist.
Man, you wouldn't know. You don't even know the argument they're making now
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,718
766
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Man, you wouldn't know. You don't even know the argument they're making now
This started all from this article below and from the article itself, they didn't even have any proof of discrimination either. Is it actually discrimination or not? Nobody has shown that it is.

Look a lot like discrimination? That's because it probably is, according to J. Robert Hunter, director of insurance for the CFA. “The pricing disparities for state mandated minimum auto insurance coverage quoted to drivers in primarily African American communities are hard to fathom actuarially and look a lot like unfair discrimination,” Hunter said in a press release.

This site has a better breakdown of things, but it also has some pretty dumbass solutions that don't work as well. Also, why are people paying so much for insurance? Mine is less than $600/year. Anyway, the solutions they give at the end like insurance price should be based on how you drive and how much you drive, but again, that's dumb as shit. If you would cause an accident in say 0.01% of "difficult situations" and another person would be equal to you in that rate of accident, one person might experience 1,000 of those situations in a year while another person might experience 500 so why would both people have the same insurance rate? Or why would you pay insurance on a per mile basis when not every mile is equal in risk? When I travel for work on the expressway, I have much less chance of an accident (just going straight with no intersections) vs when I'm not traveling for work and driving in a normal suburban area with tons of intersections but much fewer miles total.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,275
6,751
118
Country
United States
This started all from this article below and from the article itself, they didn't even have any proof of discrimination either. Is it actually discrimination or not? Nobody has shown that it is.

Look a lot like discrimination? That's because it probably is, according to J. Robert Hunter, director of insurance for the CFA. “The pricing disparities for state mandated minimum auto insurance coverage quoted to drivers in primarily African American communities are hard to fathom actuarially and look a lot like unfair discrimination,” Hunter said in a press release.
I ask this a lot, but is english your first language?
This site has a better breakdown of things, but it also has some pretty dumbass solutions that don't work as well. Also, why are people paying so much for insurance? Mine is less than $600/year. Anyway, the solutions they give at the end like insurance price should be based on how you drive and how much you drive, but again, that's dumb as shit. If you would cause an accident in say 0.01% of "difficult situations" and another person would be equal to you in that rate of accident, one person might experience 1,000 of those situations in a year while another person might experience 500 so why would both people have the same insurance rate? Or why would you pay insurance on a per mile basis when not every mile is equal in risk? When I travel for work on the expressway, I have much less chance of an accident (just going straight with no intersections) vs when I'm not traveling for work and driving in a normal suburban area with tons of intersections but much fewer miles total.
"Nobody has shown that it is" *posts information showing it is, but because they say probably, dismisses it entirely*
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,718
766
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
I ask this a lot, but is english your first language?

"Nobody has shown that it is" *posts information showing it is, but because they say probably, dismisses it entirely*
Yeah, the amount of times people have claimed racism recently when it's not racism is now more often than when something is actually racist. You do realize crime rates for your neighborhood are part of your automobile risk and causes your rates to be higher or lower, right?
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,275
6,751
118
Country
United States
Yeah, the amount of times people have claimed racism recently when it's not racism is now more often than when something is actually racist. You do realize crime rates for your neighborhood are part of your automobile risk and causes your rates to be higher or lower, right?
Yes. And so do the studies in the source you provided
A 2007 analysis of insurances rates in Los Angeles by Ong and Stoll found that even after accounting for differences in risk of loss at the neighborhood level, rates varied substantially according to the racial/ethnic and economic status of area residents, with higher rates especially in Black and Latino neighborhoods.
Procede to post the singular youtube video that has convinced you otherwise, because you alone are immune to propoganda and know better than everybody else. After all, you've heard of other racist things not actually being racist, and that means this definitely isn't, no proof required

We all know how open you are to new information that conflicts with what you want to be true
 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlayde

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,830
5,737
118
Country
United Kingdom
Wasn't sure where to post this, but this is the closest thing to an appropriate existing thread.

So, we know 'penal labour' is extensively used quite a few countries-- China, Russia and the USA being foremost among them. Usually inmates are forced to work strenuous production-line jobs for little or no pay. Al Jazeera believes that China operates the biggest penal labour system in the world today.

Other countries have laws against enforced servitude. And in those countries, private companies tend to state that they don't engage with overseas production lines using enforced servitude.

...except, of course, it appears that's far from the truth. A customer purchasing a coat from British retailer Regatta-- which states it does not use prison labour-- found a prison ID sewed into the lining of her expensive coat.


Chinese prisoners used as slaves have managed to get several messages out in the past:

* a pregnancy test bought in Paris came with a note, saying: "Dear friends, do you know that behind your peaceful life, there are Chinese prisoners".

* a Tesco Christmas card contained a note saying: "We are foreign prisoners in Shanghai Qinqpu prison China. Forced to work against our will. Please help us and notify human rights organization".

* A handbag purchased from Walmart contained a note saying: "Inmates in Yingshan Prison work 14 hours a day and are not allowed to rest at noon. We have to work overtime until midnight. People are beaten for not finishing their work".

This kind of thing lends credence to the adage, "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism". Because even if you try to follow a moral code when you buy stuff, and check where/how the companies say things are sourced... this kind of gross exploitation could still be there, just hidden behind lies and distance.
 
Last edited:

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,718
766
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Yes. And so do the studies in the source you provided


Procede to post the singular youtube video that has convinced you otherwise, because you alone are immune to propoganda and know better than everybody else. After all, you've heard of other racist things not actually being racist, and that means this definitely isn't, no proof required

We all know how open you are to new information that conflicts with what you want to be true
I don't need to post anything, you haven't proven your claim. Shocker!!! The source uses their own model they came up with vs seeing if the auto insurance companies are actually being racist or not.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,169
786
118
Country
United States
I don't care what the English teacher says about the Slippery Slope fallacy. It's not a fallacy 100% of the time. Look at the ads driving the internet to be an unusable hellscape. First, some jackass likely thinks I will just put ads in newspapers, what can go wrong, and now it's like they are everywhere. IOS, android, PC, MAC, road billboards, central squares, YouTube videos.

WebSurfing on IOs is nearly impossible without malware ads.

Yet Apple being jackasses won't even allow us to use Ublock origin on IOS. I am so sick of ads.
 

Baffle

Elite Member
Oct 22, 2016
3,459
2,746
118
Wasn't sure where to post this, but this is the closest thing to an appropriate existing thread.

So, we know 'penal labour' is extensively used quite a few countries-- China, Russia and the USA being foremost among them. Usually inmates are forced to work strenuous production-line jobs for little or no pay. Al Jazeera believes that China operates the biggest penal labour system in the world today.

Other countries have laws against enforced servitude. And in those countries, private companies tend to state that they don't engage with overseas production lines using enforced servitude.

...except, of course, it appears that's far from the truth. A customer purchasing a coat from British retailer Regatta-- which states it does not use prison labour-- found a prison ID sewed into the lining of her expensive coat.


Chinese prisoners used as slaves have managed to get several messages out in the past:

* a pregnancy test bought in Paris came with a note, saying: "Dear friends, do you know that behind your peaceful life, there are Chinese prisoners".

* a Tesco Christmas card contained a note saying: "We are foreign prisoners in Shanghai Qinqpu prison China. Forced to work against our will. Please help us and notify human rights organization".

* A handbag purchased from Walmart contained a note saying: "Inmates in Yingshan Prison work 14 hours a day and are not allowed to rest at noon. We have to work overtime until midnight. People are beaten for not finishing their work".

This kind of thing lends credence to the adage, "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism". Because even if you try to follow a moral code when you buy stuff, and check where/how the companies say things are sourced... this kind of gross exploitation could still be there, just hidden behind lies and distance.
It's a trap, because if you argue that you shouldn't be able to buy a brand new T-shirt for £5 (and slave labour is the only way these prices can be achieved) you're disingenuously accused of being classicist and saying that poor people shouldn't be able to have nice things (a similar issue is raised whenever the subject of increasing the price of meat comes up). You can argue until you're blue in the face that what you're actually saying is that we need a fairer distribution of wealth so that everyone can reasonably spend £20 on a new T-shirt, but some red-faced balloon-headed prick is just going to keep accusing you of hating poor people.

The 'due diligence' that large companies exert on their supply chains is a joke that begins and ends with their bottom line. Plausible deniability and a nice cheap apology when found out is what they're aiming for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ag3ma and Silvanus

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,376
2,033
118
I don't care what the English teacher says about the Slippery Slope fallacy.
There is deductive logic. For instance as Sherlock Holmes would say, once you have ruled out all the other possibilities, the only possibility left is true. It offers certainties. A fallacy in this sense doesn't prove anything, it gives no guarantees, it rules nothing out. Here, a slippery slope is definitely a fallacy.

Then you have inductive logic. Inductive logic does not deal in the same absolutes - it's about probabilities, relationships in the data - it allows us to infer that something may be true with a lesser or greater degree of likelihood. Many principles that are fallacies in deductive logic may (depending on context) be reasonable arguments in inductive logic. An ad hominem, for instance, may be valid reasoning: an idiot is likely to have a poor quality opinion on a subject, and that is a reasonable factor to consider when that person's opinion is used as evidence. Slippery slopes may not necessarily be fallacies in inductive reasoning, but they still require justification to be defended as reasonable arguments.

* * *

Advertising is well understood to want to fill every corner of our lives. Advertisers want us to be exposed to their adverts. Someone who wants income that has some territory (physical or virtual) and not sold it to an advertiser is missing an income stream. Therefore, unless there is a powerful alternative, they will be inclined to fill it with advertising. Of course, whoever owns the territory can then have the pleasure of charging users to not see advertising.

I find numerous websites now borderline unusable due to ads. They are so intrusive and disruptive I'd rather not access the site. This includes Facebook, which I have all but abandoned, and if someone managed to make an adequate alternative to YouTube I'd abandon that in a shot as well. I'm tempted to ditch Google, because I'm pretty sure that's now prioritising what people are paying it to show rather than what I want to find.