Total posts: 3,178
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
OK. What if you have a currency that is NOT a representation of any wealth? Pegged to nothing?
If you remove the representative aspect, currency loses all its value... thus defeating the point of giving people that currency to begin with... you might as well shit in your hand and call it a million dollars, but actually, that would be giving those people more than 1 million of a currency thats not representative of any commodity or service, cause that shit could actually be used as fertilizer for crops... so you actually shouldnt shit in your hand, you should just look at your empty hand, and call it a million dollars... it would be for all pragmatic purposes, the same thing as handing people 1 million of a currency that isnt representative of wealth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This video is hilarious, an excerpt,
"You see, leftists like to call republicans racist during election times, and the run up to election times, and after election times...because otherwise, they'd have to tell you how they plan on stealing your money to buy voters with it. And thats not a good campaign slogan, so... you're racist. To see this strategy in action you need only tune in to the Florida gubernatorial race between Democrat Andrew Gillum, a Socialist black man who wants to take your money and buy votes with it and Republican Ron Desantis. Democrats declared DeSantis racist within 12 hours of his becoming the official candidate because DeSantis used the word "monkey." Apparently Democrats think black people are like monkeys, so when a republican says the word monkey, they feel he is racist, because monkeys remind democrats of black people... so... you're racist..."
LMAO
Created:
Posted in:
sorry, to correct, currency is a representation of wealth. Wealth is commodities + services. The 18.7 trillion in GDP, is a representation of 18.7 trillion in goods and services being created, not 18.7 trillion in currency being created. We already have a digital system of IOU's, and the consequences you say would not happen because it would be digital, still happen despite it already being near wholly digital.
Created:
Posted in:
Sigh. No money would be printed. It isn't money. It is not pegged to any physical wealth.
ok, how many times does it need to be said, that injecting money into the economy, even if digital, still counts as adding money to the total amount of currency. Currency is already mostly digital. As pointed out before, only 8% of the currency/wealth is pysical. Everything else is already digital, and when you add to that amount, you will rapidly increase the supply of money, which will make it less valuable automatically. Wealth/currency is, again, a representation of commodities. The GDP of 18.7 trillion is not actually 18.7 trillion dollars in physical currency being generated, its 18.7 trillion in wealth(commodities + services) created. Currency, is again, not actual wealth, its representative of that which is actual wealth.
The market itself would correct inflation. As demand for some goods increased, supply would increase to meet the demand, and many more people would have the means to add to supply.
Yes, the market would correct that inflation, because people would dump the dollar for another global standard of currency, dropping the value of that currency, even further. What you would have, is the people smart enough to understand the ramifications, dumping the dollar before this even happens. By the time you even got the 1 million, it would already be worth far less than it would have been previously. Again, wealth/currency is a representation ofcommodities. The supply of all commodities cannot magically increase overnight, so people would get that 1 million, and blow through it quickly because of inflation. Then by the time the market increased supply of commodities to meet the demand, its already too late, those people who you intended to help, are already poor again and ur right back at square one. But this time facing still much higher prices, cause now the dollar will have been inevitably dropped as the global standard.
You have the noble intent to help, but the road to hell is paved with good and noble intentions, and this is exemplary of that adage.
Created:
Posted in:
I think a better balanced setup would have beengoongodfathermillerinsane copsane copparanoid copbodyguard
i honestly dont see much of a difference in this. If anything this game seems like it would be slightly more scum sided. I added watcher because fmpov town needed one non-cop role that was sane. The presence of 3 cops, even 2 really, is a big signal to ignore cop results and stick to reads. Maybe
-goon
-goon
-roleblocker
-watcher
-paranoid cop
-naive cop
-bulletproof
-tracker
hrmmmmmm
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Virtuoso is an asshole for not townsiding.
If he could have won with town, he probably would have. But why side with a team that you can't win with? That could easily constitute as throwing the game 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Roles for the final game of the series will be disseminated tomorrow. The theme will be
*Drumroll*
Sports! 🔥😰
Created:
Posted in:
Mafia and Survivor Win!
Town Roles
Greyparrot- Bodyguard
Rational- Cop(naive)
XLAV- Cop(insane)
Earth- Cop(paranoid)
1Harder- Watcher
Mafia
Smithereens- Goon
Third Party
Virtuoso- Survivor
_________________
Mafia MVP
The town
Town MVP
🤔
Thoughts
Scum did everything they could to lose the game, and somehow, town still lost 😂. Imho it should have been obvious Virt was not a jester, and GP actually pointed out that he started off the game trying to appear town, so it didnt make much sense that he was Jester, especially since he jumped right onto RM's inno and tried to ride that hardcore AF as making him confirmed town, and then blundered into multiple slips in quick succession.
Idk how Smithers wasnt called out for showing too much knowledge. His whole, "it makes the most sense to balance a 7 player game as 1 mafia 1 TP. It absolutely doesn't, which is why i had to alter TP win con to begin with, to maintain a semblence of balance.
Flavors, they're totally bastard modding, that is, if you want to blindly trust results, which I specifically warned against 😏.
Either way, this game was towns to win, and town still lost, as Trump would say, just SAD! 😂
Created:
Posted in:
While also adding efficiency to commerce because now you dont have to argue with each individual as to what a chicken is worth, instead you can point to a standard currency and go, "chickens are going for (B) dollars on average and goats are going for (C) dollars on average."
*voila* you have a starting point that otherwise would have to be painstakingly negotiated with every individual you would do commerce with on a regular basis 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Inflation is imaginary. With a digital IOU system (not money) there would be no inflation.
Inflation is when there is so much of something its virtually worthless. For example, sand, or dirt. Those are naturally inflated commodites.
What we have is a digital system of IOU's already. Most "wealth" is not physical. Commerce, is already mostly digital, it still however counts towards currency totals and overall value of that currency. Not adding physical currency isnt going to avoid the rapid drop in value due to the increased supply.
Even if we removed fiat currencies, or currency in general, people will still trade commodities, and those commodities will still have values that will be compared to the values of other commodities. You are mistaking currency as some sort of arbitrary unecesssary thing, when the whole reason its around is it gives people a convenient measuring bar for the value of commodities.
Instead of X chickens = Y goats in value. It is instead, X chickens, Y goats, and a myriad of other things, equals (B) dollars(or whatever currency is in prevalent use).
That money isnt itself a commodity, its representative of commodities, so you dont have to cart around 20 chickens to be able to trade for other commodities you might need. Instead you sell the chickens for (B) dollars. It allows for greater flexibility in investment and diversification of commodities(wealth).
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Smithereens (1/4) - Virtuoso
1Harder (4/4) - Greyparrot, XLAV, Smithers, Virtuoso
XLAV (1/4) - Rational
________________
1Harder was lynched, he was innocent!
Night Phase has now begun.
Created:
Posted in:
The principle remains valid even when we don't know if it really is a painting or not.
True, probability would have one assume, unless knowledge otherwise indicates, that a "painting" has a "painter". The pursuit of knowledge is often not a matter of conclusive truth, but rather, likely truth that you operate as if it's true, so as to not be plagued by uncertainty that tends to be conducive to a lack of action.
Occams Razor is exemplary imho in illustrating the aspect of probability in the pursuit of truth 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Pollock dripped black enamel paint onto the surface..."
Sure, its not the dripping of paint, its the intent of that dripping 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Welfare doesn't create success, it creates dependency. And the only decent argument ive seen regarding a universal basic income is eventually most jobs will be automated. But like, thats been said since the cotton gin was invented.
Humanities greatest strength is in innovation and creation. As jobs get automated, new professions spring up as a result of those changes. I don't see this crisis point of near whole automation of all jobs happening anytime soon, if at all.
I do however see the issue cropping up sooner rather than later, of most low skilled jobs dissapearing. Not all, but such issues could potentially be addressed in part by say, lowering intelligence standards for non-combat custodial positions in the military. As it stands, we have arbitrarily decided you can't clean latrines and work in galleys unless you are 85+ IQ 🤔.
Or, you know, charity. The greatest proportional contributions to charity causes came pre FDR and the New Deal and subsequent welfare state that created and has since grown tremendously. Its no surprise that happened, cause well, if the state is already handling it, why should anyone give any more than the taxes they pay into the system, independent of religious/ideological adherence? Funny, this belief of helping the poor from progressives doesnt extend to charitable contributions, of which religious groups still comprise a vast majority thereof. Surely that couldnt have anything to do with what I just said.
Surely people dont tend to follow the path of least resistance and effort. No, certainly not, look at the world today and you see almost everyone striving to their maximum capacity and never cutting corners if they can reasonably not face any consequences from it 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
You understand people have bigger problems than people being taller than them right?
Yes, which is why I gave the Jim Crow South example. Unquestionably these laws, in large part progressive policies with the addendum of abject racism, were a detriment to these communities. Abortion? Created as a covert eugenics program. Minimum wage? Touted by dixicrats as a means to price blacks out of the workforce and limit the cost of discrimination.
Just because race was removed from the equation in the 60's doesnt mean those policies stopped having those direct effects 😂.
Again, from 1950-1970, wealth in the black community grew at its highest rate in history, one of the fastest growths actually, the middle class in that demographic was doing great, and the rates of single parenting were still reasonable(24%)
Then comes the 60's and now these communities have access to that welfare. Abortion clinics start being put en masse in minority communities(Sanger and her eugenics). Now what do we have? A demographic with single parenting accounting for 74% of households, and generational poverty in which mother's are dependent on the government, and fathers have eschewed their responsibility cause the government is handling it. This not to mention loads of other initiatives put into place by the "War on Poverty", which was never needed because between 1950 and 1970 poverty rates dropped by near half and have remained static around the 17% mark since.
It appears that the generous welfare system allowed women to, in essence, marry the government -- and it allowed men to abandon their financial and moral responsibility, while surrendering the dignity that comes from being a good provider. Psychologists call dependency "learned helplessness" for a reason.
Sounds to me like the obvious conclusion is that the solution to poverty does not lie in government and preferential programs. This is further reinforced by Affirmative Action, which tends to result in the student admitted due to said legislation dropping out because they arent keeping up with their peers who were admitted on merits.
For example, if you have a student with a 650 SAT on their Math section, being admitted to a university such as MIT for a mathematics related degree, where students are usually in the 750+ range on that section. That student is likely to drop out, because they will percieve themselves as incapable, due to being of current lower capabilities than everyone else around them. Nor will the curriculum be at all conducive to them learning.
However, if say they were to be rejected, and end up say admitted to Boston College, a fine school in its own right, they will be around students who also scored similar on that section, which means the curriculum will be tailored for their current skills, and they are thusly all the more likely to persevere.
But, as it stands, a vast majority of minority enrollments in university, particularly blacks, start out in STEM fields, but most end up either dropping out, or changing their major to a less stringent fields in the humanities, and angry at the system that set them up for failure, despite its noble intent to afford them the opportunity to study at a premier school.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Aran55633
You are essentially advocating for an artificial injection of 350 trillion U.S. dollars into the world economy, more than doubling the total amount of money on Earth. This would cause hyperinflation, probably the most severe hyperinflation in the history of our species, and the dollar’s value would collapse to next to nothing
This is true, had my math not been shoddy, wouldve said much the same lol 🔥😰
Created:
Posted in:
1 million x 350 million is $350 trillion, not $350 billion.
Thanks, i appreciate the correction, need to stop trying to math in my head and just do it on paper 😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
muh bootstraps
Personal responsibility, work ethic, and the like may not be the only prevalent factor, but that doesn't mean its not a very large part of it.
For example, can you guess when and where the most rapid economic growth of black communities was experienced in US history? It would probably surprise you to hear that it was during the height of segregation, in the Jim Crow south 🤔. Struggle should be channeled into perserverance and higher efforts, and it used to be channeled that way. Now though, were creating generations of people who whine and bitch about being dealt pocket 2's instead of pocket aces. When guess what, you can still win with pocket 2's. Shit you can still win with a non pair and unsuited pocket. 🤔
Is that fair? No, but "fair" is not the name of the game. It wasnt fair as someone who is 6'4 that I was put on the post in H.S. basketball to play against dudes who were far taller. But I nonetheless had to because I was the tallest one. So I stepped up to the plate, put the work in to get better and play to my strengths and take advantage of their weaknesses, and suddenly, oh shit, I was outscoring and out rebounding people who both outsized me and were far taller on a regular basis 🤔
Nor was it fair that I was put on Defensive End to face off against 250-300 pound lineman when i was only 185 pounds. But guess what? That didnt stop me from averaging 1.5 sacks a game, which is pretty dang good btw, despite being regularly outmatched 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
If they could, these amazon workers can, as they are honestly facing far fewer obstacles to at least generating a semblance of wealth to pass on to your kids.
Then they can take that +1 or +2 and turn it into +4 or more. Generational wealth isnt a short term game, its not about obtaining that wealth, its about passing on the tools and culture necessary to keep both obtain and keep what wealth is recieved from being squandered.
Have welfare programs aided in establishing generational success, or established generational poverty? 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
Plenty of people pulled themselves "out of the hole" of subsistence farming and near nonexistent education, in the 1800's, without many of these measures in place to assist in accomplishing that, and in the face of far worse conditions.
So yeah, I would say they damn well can
Created:
Posted in:
To debate what constitutes a sound when you hear footsteps at 3 am in a house in which you're supposed to be alone, is to miss the implication completely.
I think the debate would be whether you heard a sound at all(as its possible to hear a sound, without any sound actually being produced), as the question of painting/painter would be, "is it even a painting?"
If yes, there is probably a painter
If no, there probably isn't one
Was there a sound?
If yes, there is a sound maker
If no, there isnt.
But the former is "probably" the latter is a concrete is/isnt. To say "this is a painting and therefore there is a painter" requires direct knowledge of whether or not said painting was deliberately and intentionally created. But, what if it wasnt? What if say, some of Pollock's pieces were him just throwing paint on a canvas, asking someone to look at it and tell them what comes to mind, and going, "yeah, lets go with that interpretation" 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
Well, lets look at the closest equivalence in current welfare systems. Do they generally produce independence, or dependency? 🤔
Are the demographic groups with the highest proportions of population on welfare, a story of vast success, or one of relative economic stagnation and continuance of poverty? 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
But you, get your facts straight
I would request you do as well. As stated, the first direct and targeted post was by you, directed at Bench.
You don't know who is continuing it.
Its not all that hard to conclusively find out who is, if not both of you. Simply put, you act hostily towards multiple members, not just bench, and continue those hostilities from thread to thread.
The people with the decision will not be a part of his clique.
Ah I see, this is such stellar logic. Because Im not agreeing with you, i therefore must be a part of "his clique". You do understand I'm generally ideologically opposed to Bench, right? 🤔
I even get in spicy jabs here and there on people in threads. I don't even really much mind your generally hostile demeanor. If you controlled it, it wouldnt be saying a damn thing. You dont control it though, you take the first insult thrown and take that as indefinite justification to continue well beyond that original offense. I'd be interested to see where you got that standard of initiation from
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Smithereens (1/4) - Virtuoso
1Harder (3/4) - Greyparrot, XLAV, Smithers
XLAV (1/4) - Rational
Created:
Posted in:
Yes.
The first targeted and directed post was from you, to bench. 🤔
But this is a biased question. On another thread he could post to me first but I am at fault if I post to him first here? I reject such partisan nonsense.
This isn't politics, simmer down. Yes, you would be at fault for reinitiating in another, unrelated thread. That thread is a room, once you leave that room and enter another, the conflict has fundamentally changed in nature.
Now instead of it being in Room A, its now in Room B. In the same way that if you got into an argument on a street corner with Person A, who started it at that time. But later on see Person A and reinitiate that conflict, you are at fault.
In the same way that if you then chose to reinitiate conflict most of the time you saw person A out and about, you would be at fault for harassment. Initiations of conflict do not extend indefinitely, they do not constitute as justification for reinitiating that conflict repeatedly at later times. For example, if I were slapped by Person A, I would be justified to hit them back in immediate response. But if i waited a couple days and gave em a good left hook, im now at fault 🤔. Same concept, different actions.
Just because someone insults you on D1, does not justify you reinitiating that conflict on D2, 3, 4, and so forth.
Created:
Posted in:
1m × 350m = 350 billion 🤔. That's alot of money and would require doing away with alot of already existent welfare programs.
Would this be 1x? I assume it wouldnt be because though it would eliminate poverty immediately, there would be many who would squander that wealth and still be left in poverty. So you would have to do this regularly, but equality under the law would dictate you have to give that 1m to people who didn't squander it also.
Then we come upon the fundamental philosophical issues at play. That being, will people still generally want to work and produce? Some may, I would hazard most would not, and so wealth generation, innovation, etc. would plummet imho.
Revamping the tax system would have to be done too, as that money is gonna have to come from somewhere, and that chances are would be from big business. But how long until those businesses leave and HQ elsewhere, where there isnt such a tax policy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Smithereens (1/4) - Virtuoso
1Harder (2/4) - Greyparrot, XLAV
Virtuoso (1/4) - XLAV
XLAV (1/4) - Rational
________________
My mistake, didn't see that vote 👏
Created:
Posted in:
You consider the aggressor and the one who started it to be two different people. Interesting...
If what Ethang stated is true, then Bench originally initiated the conflict i dont know when. However, who originally initiated, and who continues to be the aggressor and reinitiator of that conflict outside of that original instance and the thread it was contained, is the harasser.
Ex: Person X initiate conflict with Person Y on A thread.
Person Y then reinitiates that conflict on B, C, and D thread.
So even though they didn't "start" it, they are reinitiating it in unrelated areas that have zilch to very little to do with the original conflict.
Consider an individual thread as a room. If two people are hostile towards one another in Room A, but then exit room A, and later on both end up in Room B and one of the two reinitiates that conflict, what happened in Room A is irrelevant, to the reinitiation in room B.
Does that make a little more sense? Aggressor =\= the one who initiated necessarily. It often is, but that isnt the same as always. This is one of those situations where the two are not the same.
Once the block functionality is a-ok this stuff wont be much of an issue anyways 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I'm not even white knighting here, if you pay attention to most of my posts on these kinds of issues I generally view zero issue with flame wars, so long as they remain centralized in the thread it started. Otherwise, repeatedly reinitiating that conflict in other threads would be harassment, a clear violation of ToS.
Im trying to give you genuine advice here, its up to you whether or not you decide to see the merit of it 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
The idiot first posted to me, with an insult.
Was that here? I didnt see that in this thread 🤔. Initiation of conflict isnt usually, if ever, counted all the way back to what originally started the harassing behavior. Insults arent a violation of ToS, harassment is.
Like I said, if you limit it to a jab here or there, ur fine. Bench may very well have started this all originally, thats irrelevant to who is the one primarily continuing that original conflict in other threads independent of the one where the original insult was made 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Smithereens (1/4) - Virtuoso
1Harder (2/4) - Greyparrot, XLAV
Virtuoso (1/4) - XLAV
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@XLAV
Isn't the hated role supposed to be seen in the vote count?
Neither hated nor popular would show in the VC
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Smithereens (1/4) - Virtuoso
1Harder (1/4) - Greyparrot
Virtuoso (1/4) - XLAV
_________________
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Aye, its my favorite emoji 👏👏
Created:
Posted in:
Jester won't be guilty ona cop report
All potential TP's show as guilty on investigation
Created:
Posted in:
Its up to you whether or not you do, but try maybe keeping it to a jab here or there, is what im sayin 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Btw, for once, cut it out. You are pretty much in the territory of harassment. Cause this is repeated hostile behavior towards bench where you are clearly initiating.
You should probably simmer down overall hoss 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Corrected Vote Count
Smithereens (2/4) - Virtuoso, Greyparrot
1Harder (1/4) - Rational
Rational (1/4) - Smithereens
____________________
I also updated it, but the last one had it set as (x/3) when it should have been (X/4).
Created:
If a Hall of Fame ever starts up here, this thread is first ballot material 😂😂
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
1Harder(1/3)- Rational
Rational (1/3) - Smithers
Smithereens (1/3) - Virtuoso
_________________
Created:
Posted in:
Ok, so, when parsing the role list the bolded are roles. Each potential flavoring is exclusive to the role that directly precedes it, and was left unbolded to signify it is a flavor of that preceding role, and not a role itself.
The only exceptions to this are the roles of "tracker" and "bodyguard" which I mistakenly left unbolded 🙇. I hope this helps in addressing the confusion
Created:
Posted in:
I suspect that many people's 'informal definition' of 'a painting' implies something consciously and skillfully produced by a 'painter' or 'painters'. In that case the existence of a painting implies a painter by virtue of the implicit definition of 'painting' in use.But someone could have the informal definition of 'a painting' as 'any arrangement of paint on a surface', in which case an accidental paint spill would count as 'a painting'.
This seems accurate, so generally "thats a painting and someone painted it" would be a tautology, but whether or not it is one depends upon how "painting" is defined 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
On a more serious note, i can kinda see Drafters point. To say there is a painting does not necessarily mean there is a painter involved. Whether or not something is a "painting" comes down to the person observing.
For example I'd have a hard time classifying someone who accidentally spilled paint on a canvas as a "painter" because painting to me implies the intent to create a piece of art with paint. There is a message of some sort, or emotion(technically a message too, no?), basically, something is intentionally trying to be conveyed.
Without that intent, fmpov you have what could potentially be considered a painting, without an actual "painter". Being honest though, this isn't a topic ive given much deep thought on, so my perspective is likely erroneous to a certain degree
Created:
Posted in:
Where are her eyebrows? Did the paint erode? Did a bird carry them away? Did the thief who stole the painting just never give them back?
Plot twist: she didn't have eyebrows at the time she was painted. Twas caused by a freak accident involving a goat 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
TBH the roles and mechs of this game are kinda confusing to me.
Admittedly i could've formatted the DP1 OP role list alot better. Its creating alot of unnecessary confusion and I'm def working on reformatting it so its less confusing to parse through 🙇
Created:
Posted in:
but only because its really sad that those people actually exist in real life and that society has to deal with them.
This perfectly explains why I both sob and hysterically laugh while reading your posts 🔥😰
😎
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
You are forgetting the, "she's too young for you bro" thread. That was funny AF 😂😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
I could, that's one of the main reasons why i chose performance, because heckling is in itself a form of performance 👏. Its not enough to just insult people, you have to hit them where it hurts.
Ex: You don't call a musclebound guy a meathead, thats not gonna rile em up. Telling them it looks like theyre getting pudgy in the waistline and while they've been busy pumping iron their wife/gf has been busy getting pumped full of dicks, though, that's likely to goad a hostile reaction. This is also true in terms of responses to heckling, a good heckler let's the person get a few jabs in as a means to get them emotionally invested, so when you pull out the zingers, they're super likely to flip their shit 😏
Created: