Total posts: 4,140
Posted in:
I'm not sure whether it's better for us to say what we plan to do (although not who we plan to do it to) so we can coordinate or say nothing so the mafia is left guessing. Personally, I'm leaning toward the latter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Were you asking what roles each of us would take tonight?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Agreed. VTNLIf this were a conventional game I would say we should drag it out, but what real info are we going to get now? Also this is just a quickfire to fill time while warren gets his game up. I am okay with going to the night phase now, maybe we can get some useful information from people's night actions tonight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Oh. I tend to take things too literally and miss jokes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Okay guys post your roles now
There are no roles. We're either dreamers or the nightmare, and no one is going to admit to being the nightmare.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Not that I know of but this isn't a conventional game. Sounds like mafia can make up whatever and see what the mod allows. There's a role called "Ninja" that makes it so mafia won't show up on tracker or watcher reports though. I imagine they would have to choose between that or godfather, not sure mod will allow both. But I have never seen a game like this.
It's encouraging to know that they probably can't block everything we do, anyway.
Well now that I think about it... What's to stop mafia from using strong man ability? Strongman pierces through protective roles. Hmm...
That depends entirely on his willingness to gamble. If he decides that cops, watchers, and trackers will likely target others and not him, he might try it. On the other hand, if he's conservative, he will protect himself rather than ensure a kill. If he does try to kill someone without being a strongman and that someone is protected, would we be told about it, and, if so, how much would we be told?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@Vader
Should we vote for no lynch now, or wait in hopes of getting more info?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Depends on if we get a mislynch today. If we mis-lynch we get an automatic LYLO the following phase, in which I am dis-inclined to believe any results. Might be worth considering a no lynch today unless there is really scummy behavior we just can't ignore.
I agree. It's too risky to lynch today.
Well that too. I would suggest people get creative with their roles, tracker, watcher results are probably more useful investigative roles if we don't mislynch today.
That sounds like a good idea. However, are there any roles the nightmare could choose to avoid all night actions? I've read the mafia rules and possible roles, but I can't remember off the top of my head.
Also, do you think we should do purely investigation with watchers and trackers, or try some protection with doctors as well?
Created:
Posted in:
I just realized that cops might be useless. Since the nightmare can also use a dream ability, he would just make himself a godfather every time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Rather, I think the correct move would be for town to use as many protective type roles as possible. If mafia gets two kills and two mis-lynches they win. I'd hope to see doctors and bulletproofs tonight.
This sounds like a good idea, but it might be considered gamebreaking if everyone is protected, because then the mafia would be unable to win.
What do you think about the set up? Whats the best actions to use?
I don't know. What do you think about a combination of cops and doctors?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
If we lynch now and the mafia kills someone, there will only be two dreamers left with very little to go on after only one round. They will have one shot with low odds.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm new at this, but I would suggest dragging this first round out until the last day to get as much info as possible, then vote for no lynch. With so few people, we can't afford to mislynch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
That's an interesting thought. However, Speedrace didn't say we couldn't until asked, so it did make sense to ask it.
Created:
Posted in:
Interesting idea for a mafia game. What do we do in the first day, since we have no info?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I looked it up. It looks like she's just refusing to say they will go up rather than saying they won't go up. Not an outright lie, but still not very honest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
She has answered the question dozens of times. She is just trying to avoid giving right wing media a soundbite. Her answer is that you will pay less because you will no longer be paying co-pays, premiums etc. So you will be paying less than you are paying right now.
It isn't that she's trying to avoid giving a soundbite. She is lying outright and saying middle class tax rates won't have to go up. Even Sanders knows better than that and is honest enough to say so. Warren is trying to have it both ways by eliminating private insurance and instituting single-payer without paying for it in taxes. In reality, someone has to pay for health insurance. There is no such thing as a free health insurance policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The US healthcare costs in in 2017 was 3.5 trillion, or $10,739 per person. That means that costs would be going down from what is being paid now. You are attempting to argue people couldn't afford to pay less than they are currently paying.
Only if you don't read the second half of my post. The first half (by which I mean the part between the first and second quotes) assumes that the studies concluding single-payer would save money are accurate. The second half of my post explains why they are probably underestimating the costs and that single-payer would not actually save money. I didn't make that clear when I wrote it, though, which made it confusing.
45,000 out of a population of 37.5 million. That is a tiny fraction.
Sure, but that still doesn't change the fact that their single-payer healthcare system isn't nearly as good as advertised.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Now that we're back up to five, will we still start tonight?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
The rules are essentially the same, but it is still a very different game. I've read some of the mafia games on this site, and internet mafia has a very different (and in my opinion better) dynamic than live mafia. In internet mafia, there is time to apply logic to the game. Live, it looks more like the proverb "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." (Proverbs 18:17, ESV), but with the bandwagon forming so fast that the cross-examiner never has time to speak. Basically, the first two or three accusations stick with almost no opportunity to explain why the accusations are illogical. Once accused, you will be accused again and again until lynched, and logic and facts can just go jump off a cliff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
I have played it live with a group of people, but never on the internet.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If cell phones were used in ancient Greece (500 BCE).
It was just the first example that came to mind. I know it isn't a perfect example, but democracy is considered more of a modern thing. Ancient and medieval democracies were the exceptions, not the rule.
Interestingly, that's one of the arguments against democracy. (IFF) you believe people are idiots (THEN) democracy seems like a bad idea.
Voters in a democracy are not children, so it doesn't apply. I'm aware that there are superficial similarities, but they are different in substance.
Perhaps, but the greatest businessmen of the 20th century, like J. D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie and Cornelius Vanderbilt all began working full-time at age 11 and never went to college. Thomas Edison was taught reading and basic arithmetic by his mother and only attended school for three months as a young child. And more recently, high-school drop-outs, Bill Gates and Richard Branson among others, seem to be doing ok for themselves. [LINK] and [LINK]
Those are exceptions, not the rule.
We are really off topic. I'm not sure that have any disagreements about the topic left.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Oh, you mean like the republics in Ancient Greece?
The interesting thing about the republics in ancient Greece was that they were in ancient Greece, not medieval. In any case, monarchies were the norm, even though there were exceptions.
And dragons?Are dragons more realistic than representative democracy?
There is a difference between making up dragons, which don't exist, and inserting representative democracy, which do exist, but in the wrong time period. It would be like giving King Henry VIII a cell phone. It isn't that it can't be done, but it makes it feel like the wrong time period.
But don't you think children should have some input into the decision making process?I mean, should you force kids to eat broccoli (for example) if they're perfectly willing to eat peas instead?
Yes, they can have some input. It's more important decisions like "Should Daddy work or stay home and play with us all day?" that they shouldn't be making.
And I almost forgot, do you believe "going to school" is really the best use of their time?
Not necessarily, but an education, whether going to a public or private school, homeschooling, or even hiring a tutor, is very beneficial in the long run. Many jobs, including most of the high-paying jobs, require some kind of education. I don't believe the American education system is anywhere near perfect, but it is still better than no education at all.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Isn't it a little strange that we love to blather on and on about "democracy" and how great it is, but our literature, especially for children (inculcation), is riddled with Kings and Queens and Princes and Princesses?
That's due to nostalgia, rose-colored glasses, and the fact that it makes next to no sense to have the main character swing a sword and then go to a voting booth. In order to do medieval fantasy, you need to at least be realistic enough to have a monarchy rather than interjecting republics where they didn't exist.
Isn't it a little strange that we're born into families that are generally Autocratic (quasi-fascist)?Isn't it a little strange that we idolize the military which is generally Autocratic (quasi-fascist)?Isn't it a little strange that we work for businesses that are generally Autocratic (quasi-fascist)?Isn't it a little strange that we're taught to obey a god that is generally Autocratic (quasi-fascist)?
Rather than deal with these one at a time, I will answer what I think is the more important point. Simply put, democracy works well as a form of government. That does not mean it works well for other things. A democratic family, for instance, would be foolish because the children have undeveloped brains and a lack of experience which would lead them to make bad decisions like not going to school. A democratic military would be a complete disaster. You can look into the abysmal performance of militia in the War of 1812 to see what I mean. Democracy is a good form of government because it reflects what the people want. While that isn't a very good measure of what they actually need, it is far better than other options like fascism, in which the government is built around what the dictator wants, which is an even worse measure of what the people need.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
How will we know what our roles are? Will you PM us or something?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
If they want it to be affordable, they have to "negotiate". That is essentially price fixing, as they will have a 100% market share. We don't price fix, which is why we lead the world in innovation.It takes on average 12 years and $350 million to get a new drug through the FDA. If we limit a company's ability to make a profit, I doubt we will continue to make so many new lifesaving drugs.
Exactly.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Everything you've mentioned is bad-fascism, like having a bad king.What about good-fascism, like having a benevolent king.For example,The Catholic Church has no tolerance for criticism (blasphemy). The Catholic Church fostered xenophobia and racism (antisemitism) that lead to the Holocaust in WWII. It is centered around a cult-of-personality (The Holy Pope). The Catholic Church is dictatorial and its elections are rigged through the suppression of dissent. Historically, The Catholic Church has imprisoned and burned-at-the-stake anyone who dares to disagree. The Catholic Church relies on manipulative and blatantly false propaganda to deceive the people.But they're the "good guys" so, doesn't that make it ok?
Firstly, the Catholic church doesn't rig its elections (although it does restrict voting to cardinals), and it isn't a government. Secondly, why did you assume that I think the Catholics are the "good guys?" I'm not Catholic and I never said I was. When the Catholics do things like burn people at the stake or use false propaganda, I don't approve. The only way you could have "good fascism" is if you have an immortal, omnibenevolent king. If the king isn't immortal, then he will die, and his heirs will institute "bad fascism." If the king isn't omnibenevolent, then he will still end up abusing his power.
Why are you suddenly defending fascism? I had thought by your first post that you opposed fascism. Is this meant to be a thought experiment or something like that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Could you provide references to that? I took a look and the information I found said California approved it but the governor kept vetoing it. I'm not sure where you got that information from.
I once did a bunch of research into the topic and had the sources saved on a computer, but at some point I deleted them, and I can't find them again. Here is a different source explaining in brief that Vermont, California, and Colorado rejected single-payer and the costs that caused them to do so:
In any case, it's just simple math. Bernie Sanders' proposed plan would cost America $32 trillion over 10 years, or 3.2 trillion dollars per year. In 2018, there were 127.59 million households in America. A cost of $3.2 trillion spread over 127.59 million households is $25,000 per year. If you go by each person instead of each household, it's just shy of $10,000 a year (using a population of 330 million).
The current studies disagree. Even the studies done by right wing think tanks I have seen say that america could cover everyone and pay less. Here is a link to an article discussing a recent study which found america would save $886 billion over 10 years. Every study I have seen says Americans would save money.
The studies you looked at disagree. That does not mean that all, most, or even a majority disagree. Here is a study from RAND examining the effects of a proposed single-payer plan in New York:
To quote their conclusion in full:
"This analysis shows that a single-payer approach in New York could expand coverage while reducing total health spending, assuming that the state is able to negotiate slower growth of provider payments and trim administrative expenses. While these assumptions are reasonable, they are also highly uncertain and depend on providers’ bargaining power, the state’s ability to administer the plan efficiently, and the federal government’s willingness to grant waivers to the state. The analysis also assumes one possible progressive tax rate schedule to finance NYH. This tax schedule would reduce average health care payments for a majority of the population; however, the viability of this tax schedule assumes that few high-income residents find ways to avoid taxation. If only a small percentage of the highest-income residents found ways to avoid taxes, the schedule would need to be reworked, potentially increasing the burden on middle- and lower-income residents. Overall, these results suggest that the single-payer option has the potential to lower payments for the majority of New Yorkers, but the results depend on assumptions about uncertain factors." (italics mine)
To quote the headline of a National Review article discussing the study, "If you assume single-payer saves money, it does." Whenever a study says that single-payer will save money, you need to examine the assumptions of the study. For instance, the RAND study assumed that provider payments will increase at the same rate as in Medicare and Medicaid, which is less than the rate at which private payments are growing. With that assumption, NY's plan would save 3% of their total healthcare spending after ten years. But if you assume that the payments will increase at the private rate, spending will go up by 12% in ten years.
Another study by Charles Blahous of the Mercator institute was used by some to claim that Sanders' plan would save $2 trillion over ten years. However, that analysis assumed that Medicare-for-all would pay hospitals at the Medicare rate. The problem with that is that the Medicare rate only pays hospitals for 87% of their costs. The only reason hospitals can afford that is because private insurers pay 144% of the costs. If that assumption became reality, hospitals would go bankrupt. In order to prevent that, the plan would have to either pay 100% or more, eliminating the $2 trillion dollars in savings, or hospitals would have to make drastic cuts, reducing both the quality of and access to healthcare.
The point here is simple: No matter how hard you try, you cannot guarantee something high quality to everyone at an affordable cost. This applies to anything, not just healthcare (or health insurance, in this case). Communist countries in the Cold War proved this time and again. If it is high quality and affordable, it can not be made available to everyone. This happens all the time in Canada. Their average wait time for a doctor's appointment is 20 weeks. (Source: https://globalnews.ca/news/3084366/q-a-how-long-are-medical-wait-times-in-canada-by-province-and-procedure/) By contrast, America has only a 24 day or 3.5 week delay. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2017/03/19/doctor-wait-times-soar-amid-trumpcare-debate/#2f64301f2e74) One of the main reasons that Canada's system supposedly works so well is that tens of thousands of Canadians get their healthcare by coming to America (45,000 in 2015 according to https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-health-tourists-drop-1.3800729). Can you imagine what their waiting time for an appointment would be if you added 45,000 people to the waiting lists?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It suppresses dissent with violence. It denies people rights such as the rights to bear arms and have free speech and press. It fosters xenophobia and racism that lead to the Holocaust in WWII. It promotes extreme nationalism that led to wars of conquest, ultimately killing tens of millions in the European front of WWII. It is frequently centered around personality cults that exalt dictators, which we saw with Hitler, Mussolini, and Francisco Franco. Its economic policies are unsustainable and would have lead to recession without the war. It is dictatorial and its elections are rigged through the suppression of dissent. The secret police assassinate or imprison those who disagree. Fascist governments rely on manipulative and blatantly false propaganda to deceive the people.
Shall I go on, or is that enough?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's an interesting question.What's wrong with fascism anyway?
Are you serious, or am I missing a joke somewhere?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Here's a different song by that band with more regular timing:
Disciple - Dear X (You Don't Own Me)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You seem to be looking at this backwards. My numbers are just made up as an example for argument. Let's say you pay 35% in taxes and 15% in insurance (premiums, co-pays etc) right now. If a new system increased your taxes to 45%, but eliminated your insurance costs entirely, then you are paying 5% less of your income. You are saving money, not paying more. So asking how much more people can afford to pay is a moot point, because they will be paying less than they are paying now.Right wing politicians want people to think that paying higher taxes is automatically a terrible thing. Like somehow the fact that the money goes to the government is more evil than money going to a for profit company. But medicare for all will save you money. It will make sure that no one goes bankrupt over medical expenses. It will make sure no one dies because they couldn't afford care.It is both the best financial and moral policy.
While it is true that single-payer or Medicare-for-all would be good financial policy if they saved more healthcare money than they took in taxes, the simple fact is that they take more in taxes than they could ever save. Both California and Vermont strongly considered moving to single-payer. But even though they are both solid blue, far left states, they ultimately rejected it. Why? Because the plans would have had an annual cost of roughly $25,000 per household. There is no conceivable way that could save money.
Created:
Posted in:
I doubt most of you are into this style, but here's a song I've been listening to recently.
Disciple - Cuff the Criminal
Created:
Posted in:
I'll join. I know the basic rules, but I've never played it on the internet before.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't mean to be annoying, but you actually spelled it correctly.
Created:
What fascist characteristics would those be? Pro-censorship and pro-violence? Let me know if I've missed one that you object to.
Yes, those are the fascist characteristics I am referring to. There may be others, but I don't need them to demonstrate my point, so I'm too lazy to think of what those might be.
Even if you oppose quasi-fascism you still need to be specific about your objection.
How about the objection of being opposed to fascism, whether regular or quasi?
Are you pro-unrestricted-free-speech (including hate-speech)? Are you anti-violence (pacifist)? Are you against all public protests (de facto supporter of fascist tactics)?
It is possible to be anti-violence without being pacifistic. For instance, it is possible to oppose aggressive violence (beating journalists, wars of conquest) without opposing defensive violence (self-defense against criminals or resisting invasion), whereas a pacifist would oppose both aggressive and defensive violence. Perhaps a better term would be anti-unjustified-aggressive-violence. It is possible to object to antifa without having to pick one of those three by being anti-aggression. In my case, I would be anti-aggression and pro-unrestricted-free-speech, so I would fit into one of your categories. However, someone who was only anti-aggression or anti-wearing-ski-masks-when-you-aren't-skiing, to use a silly example, would not fit into any of your categories.
Perhaps, "individual sovereignty"?
Perhaps.
Free-market-capitalism is a pipe-dream. There are no free-markets, only regulated markets.
I'm not going down that rabbit hole.
I appreciate your scathing critique.
I'm not sure whether to be glad that you appreciated it, offended that you called it scathing when it wasn't meant to be, or annoyed at myself for coming off as scathing even though I'm trying to be civil. Whatever the case, thank you for being both civil and reasonable.
Created:
Even the worst Anti-Fascist groups are not properly fascist, because they are not a formal government (please observe the definition of fascism), at best they might be considered "quasi-fascist".
Firstly, you're confusing "fascist" with "fascism." It is possible to be a fascist without being a formal government. The dictionary.com definition of fascist is "a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism." It does not require them to be a government. Secondly, I did not say they were "properly fascist." I said "antifa in America has some fascist characteristics." I am aware that they are not full-blown fascists. That is why I said they "have some fascist characteristics" and not "they are fascists." Thirdly, even if they are merely "quasi-facist," that still undermines your argument because opposing antifa would be opposition to quasi-fascism rather than advocacy for fascism.
however, if you support a principle, then you are IMPLICITLY ENDORSING/DEFENDING the specific policies and or individual actions that manifest from those principles.
Again, you are confusing legality with morality. However, I do agree with you on a legal basis. Legally speaking, there is no difference between saying "X should be legal" and "X should not be illegal." From that perspective, you could say I am a hate speech advocate, even though I personally disapprove of hate speech and would call myself a free speech advocate. I object to the term hate-speech advocate because it is unclear. If you say "hate-speech advocate," people will think that person uses hate speech, even though that isn't true. Basically, what I'm saying is that your second axiom gives the impression that someone must be hateful in order to be anti-anti-fascist for the reason that they oppose all censorship, even though that isn't the case.
(IFF) someone supports personal-privacy (THEN) they are a defacto abortion-rights-advocate.
I disagree, but that is another can of worms that is totally irrelevant. Secondly, "if" spelled IFF means "if and only if," and I don't think that's what you mean.
Playing your dance music at high-volume in your back yard at 2am on a week night "does not cause direct physical harm" either. I'm not sure that "direct physical harm" is a coherent standard.
Actually, it does cause direct physical harm in the form of sleep deprivation. I am aware that direct physical harm isn't a completely coherent standard, but I didn't have time to work out a legal philosophy that I could boil down into a few sentences.
you object to "Anti-Fascism" because you are against public protests (THEN) you are a de facto supporter of FASCIST tactics.
Agreed, and that is much better wording than what I thought up.
Eh, not necessarily. You might be conflating capitalism with "free-market-capitalism" or "laissez-faire-capitalism".
Yes, when I say "capitalism," I am usually referring to a complete economic system that could be called "free-market-capitalism." Perhaps that isn't the most common definition, but even these definitions
|
|
\/
CAPITALISM:An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.The state of having capital or property; possession of capital.The concentration or massing of capital in the hands of a few; also, the power or influence of large or combined capital.
don't change the fact that fascist countries have nationalized major industries, which doesn't qualify as "an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned" and therefore is not capitalist.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Created:
There are two problems that I can see with your logic.
1. Your premise assumes that the group claiming to be anti-fascist is, in fact, opposed to fascism. For example, the antifa groups in Portland, Oregon have been known to beat up journalists. Since silencing dissent with violence is one characteristic of fascism, it is safe to say that the Portland antifa has some fascist characteristics. Therefore, opposing the Portland antifa would be opposing fascism, since the group claiming to be anti-fascist is actually fascist (at least in some ways). However, if the group in question is, in fact, anti-fascist, your premise stands. The problem is that antifa in America has some fascist characteristics, so your logic cannot be used to defend them.
2. Your second axiom does not follow. Simply because someone opposes all censorship does not make them an advocate for hate speech. Such a person would necessarily have to defend people's right to say hateful things, but that does not necessarily mean that they defend those hateful things. For instance, I support people's right to say racial slurs; at the same time, I discourage them from using such slurs. This case illustrates the difference between legality and morality. I think it is legal to say racial slurs, but I do not think it is moral. The reason I defend people's right to say hateful things is not because I agree with them, but because I do not think the law can be used to enforce morality. Obviously, the law does need to enforce aspects of morality that, if ignored, would cause direct physical harm to themselves or others (for instance, do not murder, do not steal). On the flip side, the law should not enforce such things as do not use hate speech or do not use profanity because those things do not cause direct physical harm and they would be almost impossible to enforce.
I have two other objections to your post, but they are closer to technicalities. Axiom 3 does not follow because, while it is true that opposing public protests is a characteristic of fascism, having one characteristic of fascism does not make you a fascist. Thus, it would be better to say "then you are fascist in that respect." Since that would be rather clunky wording, I understand why you didn't use it.
My final objection is in the definition you provided for fascism. Your definition lists "a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls" as a characteristic of fascism. This is both contradictory and incorrect, although it isn't that far from the truth. It is contradictory because a capitalist economy is, in part, an economy that doesn't have stringent government controls. If an economy is capitalist, it doesn't have strict government controls; if it has strict government controls, it isn't capitalist. Instead, it is a mixed economy. The definition is incorrect because, historically, fascist countries like Italy and Germany nationalized major industries, which is a characteristic of socialism. However, their economies were mixed and not entirely socialist; still, they are closer to the socialist side than that definition would indicate.
I apologize if my post is excessively wordy, technical, and/or contrarian. Obviously, I am bad at writing concisely. As a final point, I noticed that your link goes to DuckDuckGo. Congratulations for using a superior search engine!
Created:
Posted in:
My comment says scrum when it should say scum. Stupid autocorrect.
Created:
Posted in:
Hello. I am Sir Anonymous, a Christian, capitalist, and nerd who is adamantly opposed to posting personal information on the internet.
I am also a refugee from DDO, although I was only there for a week. Someone should have shut down that troll-infested hive of scrum and villainy down years ago.
I am also a Star Wars fan. ;)
Created: