asdfgasd

5 ms·

1.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
If I'm allowed to ask "What should we do about the Jewish Question" in a manner that appears civil, it's still not a civil discussion, regardless of the tone. If someone responds "don't you dare ask the Jewish
2.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
It's not intentionally incendiary when it's largely true.
3.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
Sure, but if that is your position you should go out and advocate for this better thing instead of bemoaning the efforts other people are making as misplaced. This shows up anytime people try to make some sort of progressive improvement to
4.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
Right, but you're questioning a position that doesn't really exist. Pretty much everyone that is a strong advocate for labour protections would also like universal healthcare, it's just much more likely we can achieve labour
5.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
> I'm an anarchist. The license plate on my Jeep is literally "ANARCHY." I'm actually not sure I could name a political position that's more strongly opposed by more people. You're not an anarchist and you s
6.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
> Sure, they might have ill-gotten capital in the form of a deed (ignoring the likelihood that there's a lien on that deed) on a tiny parcel of stolen/colonized land or vested stock in the monopolist they work for, but that&#x2
7.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
How about a complete abolition of capital?
8.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
> I don’t like taxes being used to take away property from people just because you want what they have. This is just a variant of "the left is just jealous of rich people" argument. That's not an argument and I'm not
9.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
It's not so much that HN isn't 'open', but there is a wide double-standard in the evidence required for libertarian-right arguments vs leftist arguments. See this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item
10.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
Of course, everything is ideological. I'm a socialist so I'm plenty familiar with going against the status-quo and my HN karma reflects that. I'm arguing against hiding your ideological motive (lower taxes) under the guise of
11.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
Because there are a thousand other practical solutions people have presented that you're ignoring in deference to your ideological motive that you don't like taxes.
12.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
> When you put it that way, the solution is obvious When it's put in an ideologically biased way that ignores practical solutions to paying taxes on an increasing property value, it implies another ideologically biased solution that
13.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
>The contract breech: Property taxes going up so fast that the only possible solution was to sell your home. Now, of course the value of the home was going up, which was what was driving the taxes. But forcing pensioners to sell their ho
14.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
I fully agree with you. This insane attitude of "my ill-gotten capital is worth more than your existence" is pathetic and sad.
15.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
Maybe you can try using your giant 'logical' brain to postulate why that isn't a good idea? You're suggesting making a fucking ghetto for homeless people? Are you serious? This thread has confirmed my suspicion that HN c
16.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
Why don't you offer an alternative solution then? Throwing the homeless people in jail is ineffective and immoral. If your solution is drug treatment programs, great, but then don't argue against raising taxes to pay for them.
17.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
There are many, it's a very old, very well thought-out tradition. Try reading Kropotkin, or from a more modern perspective, Richard Wolff. However, it doesn't align with the current vision of orthodox Western capitalism, so it isn
18.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
Your claim this isn't whataboutism is interesting based on a quick reading of your comment history. It sure doesn't appear that you actually care about these other issues or you're just trying to provide 'perspective&#x2
19.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
Yes, thinking of funds like this as cash flow is absolutely a mistake. Strong democratic ownership of capital will be necessary for true democratization of society, and this is an important step (although too centralized in my uninformed op
20.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
Mongolia's dominance was far before the industrial revolution. That argument is so devoid of context it's not worth addressing. They did achieve huge gains in wealth through imperialism anyway... The USSR was imperialist, and did
21.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
Slightly less than half of all Americans have any investment in the stock market. Pension funds were largely replaced with 401k's, but salaries were not increased to compensate. While you're technically correct, the stock market p
22.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
Venezuela has less public ownership of resources than even the US. To say that they are 'communist' is an ideological farce. People are opposed to regime change because the US government has a long history of destabilizing foreign
23.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
> when in many ways it's a shining example of how to do things right US prosperity is largely a function of imperialism and military might, not some magical economic formula. For instance, in South America: https://en.wik
24.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
Maybe you should actually spend some time in China before making silly assumptions. The Chinese government is not overly concerned with individual citizens sharing anti-government sentiment. It's not a problem for most people that aren
25.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
> established-leftist-media such as the NYT The NYT is decidedly _not_ leftist. Slightly-liberal leaning maybe, but in no way leftist. They supported the Iraq war of all things. I honestly can't think of a paper that leftists are mo
26.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
/r/news is not left-leaning by any reasonable metric (there is frequently blatant racism heavily upvoted). /r/politics is only left-leaning because of how heavily skewed right american politics is. Most of their opinions
27.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
> Of course I am not referring to the worst stuff on that subreddit, there is shit there, and much more than average, but if a sizeable part of the population has views like this is banning it really fair? That's the problem though.
28.
by asdfgasd 7y ago
Not necessarily. The Soviet government was engaged in significant censorship and was not fascist. Same with the CCP currently. Fascism implies censorship, but censorship does not imply fascism.