TheRealNihilist

You're thinking of this within a capitalist paradigm, which isn't the only paradigm available. It's the one that we are currently living under.

Then they work to earn more. But the 1k baseline gives them the freedom to pursue other work that they may find more fulfilling, or to work more limited hours. And since Yang supports Medicare for all, it removes our idiotic pairing of employment with healthcare. If they cannot work at all, then other welfare programs exist that will give them more. But the number of people who will be on those is vanishingly small.

So change their circumstances with $1,000 a month to them and everyone in their family and community.

I do agree; I don't think that the government is good at solving people's problems. It's good at handing them a big pile of money though, and letting them work on their own problems.

If it tended to you would be able to produce an example of it happening. One not existing indicates that it tends not to.

Alaska's UBI is much smaller than what Yang is proposing. UBI isn't supposed to free you from labor, it's supposed to increase your negotiating power as a laborer.

I mean, I'm the one saying that there was no evidence of inflation. You're the one claiming that inflation would happen. The burden of proof is on you; find a study on the inflationary effects of a real world UBI program. There's no need to stick to one either, especially when we have so few examples to work with.

Yeah, but the end goal is that they become more wealthy while still receiving 1,000 in UBI.

it's supposed to revitalize local economies

help to fight systemic poverty

I'm about 25% certain that feminism is an affirmation in the superiority of the female race.

I'm going to need some proof that is what he believes, because I believe that to be a lie.

LOL nice try bucko, you claimed I was using hate speech so now you change the focus to what Crowder and SNL said, no need to prove my point, but thanks.

because I wanted to see what your motive actually was, it wasn't to denounce speech or what was actually said, aka selective moral outrage, but rather an attack on Steven Crowder, plain as the nose on your face.  wataboutism doesn't fit YOUR definition of hate speech either.  Just can't keep your foot out of your mouth can you.

ohh well let me use your own words then "How is my fault that you didn't quantify(specifiy) how many grown-ups you meant (Crowder)? That fault is on you."  you see pedantic

no I understand, you think you can label people as you wish, when you wish and how you wish, I get that fully. 

I also get you think you are the last word on these arbitrary words as to what their definitions are.  Someone who claims to be a feminist but doesn't meet your criteria for one, therefore can't call themselves one, yeah I totally understand authoritarianism when I hear it.

That's a classic leftist trait.  

Men and women don't need equal rights in all things.

Why do women need a right to have urinals in a restroom? Why do men need a right to breastfeed in public?

hate to break it to you, but men and women ARE in fact different, wow can't believe you'd disagree with that.

you really are special aren't you.  What i said doesn't fit that definition LOL

post #57

doesn't fit your own posted definition of hate speech (a statement intended to demean and brutalize another. It is the use of cruel and derogatory language, gestures or vandalism often directed towards an individual or group.)

already said that was a lie, never said that but you keep it up, do you find the sexist joke equal to a racist joke or is one worse than the other?

Now I can't tell if you are a lair or just really dumb.

that's correct you are a hypocrite and a liar from what you have typed, not what I typed, I've just quoted you, your words speak for themselves.

ahh so all Christians are sexist by your account, now I see 

it depends on who is defining feminism since many "feminist" groups are vastly different in behavior and mission.  So another distortion of the truth or rather you insert your own truth.

Nope, because people aren't impoverished intrisically, they are impoverished due to injustices within our economic system.

it's always 1,000. Your assistance doesn't decrease as you climb out of poverty.

Poor people aren't inherently irrational with money

scarcity has been shown to lower a persons IQ by a standard deviation, and UBI helps to eliminate the scarcity mindset. I think you might have picked up some rather unfair views of poor people from Republican propaganda.

Also, look at Alaska. UBI hasn't lead to either inflation or bad choices;

 people use the money to pay down bills or generally augment a responsible life.

The reason that UBI doesn't lead to price inflation is because while it gives consumers more money, it also revitalizes local economies to create more competition. There was no measurable inflation in the Finland trial.

It's a VAT on domestic automated industry, not on European goods. You may be thinking of the fact that Europe, along with every other civilized country in the world, already has a VAT because VATs are incredibly difficult to dodge.

I don't see poor people doing that, because everyone wants a better life and more money. 

You seem liberal to me, so I don't know why you seem to believe that most people on welfare are 'welfare queens'. 

Most of them are working poor trying to make ends meet, and if they make more money and the government cuts their benefits due to means testing then UBI becomes the better option.

Also, UBI is no-strings-attached money. It's not SNAP, which people often are ashamed to use. There's no government oversee checking in on how you're spending the money. It gives you freedom 

Social security costs alone are like 2 billion a year I think, and the country has less than a thousand billionaires,so giving them all 1,000 bucks brings the cost to 12 million a year.

ooohhh so then that makes me anti free speech

you apply the term hate speech for me

even though I never use the term, but doesn't apply to yourself.

yeah you aren't a hypocrite or a liar at all.

you are talking about 4 seconds which is when he was trying to find out what was going on with the video.

So you are saying the person in charge was going to turn everything off before he promoted his mug club, said final words, sign off etc, just an abrupt stop, that's what you want us to believe?

the link you posted obviously wasn't live right?  So why would it still be up and or not edited?

you never did answer,

does one comment label someone as something forever and permanently?

if he's made more pro equality than anti sexist comments than sexist ones, what's that make him?

do you judge people by the most recent thing they've said?

so he could do a pro equality video and you'd change your mind right?

if they do start making more money and pull themselves out of poverty, they can start taking UBI

they can transition to UBI and have an incentive to rise all the way to the middle class. 

The main way, however, is that it will tie consumer economies to people instead of money.

With UBI, a consumer market is immediately created in all of those places to the tune of $1,000 a person, which stimulates small businesses and local artisans and makes it easier for people to pull themselves out of poverty and find meaningful work. It spreads the wealth out of the suburbs, super-affluent coastal cities, and gentrified hipster dens.

You aren't really giving Jeff Bezos $1,000 dollars a month, because the VAT that will fund UBI is going to hit him like a truck, to the tune of billions of dollars.

Also, means testing causes huge bureaucratic bloat. The upkeep cost of that bloat is also money that could be going to people who need it. And that number is way more than 1k for the 1%.

"Hate Speech" is comprises of two words.

murderer is a word, hate speech is a recent made up term.

ok Mr. Pedantic I'll play your childish games. Did I say there are consequences or did I say there should be consequences? 

As I said there are consequences even for protected speech which does not mean I "don't believe in free speech" as you wrongfully claimed aka lied about.

Do you believe there are no consequences ever for things you say?

Have you never had consequences for things you have said?  keep trying to justify the lies you made and I'll keep showing you are a liar.

"alright we have audio but lost the image" exact words

See that's the problem, all religion is cultural and mostly archaic. Even the most up to date cultures have accommodations for different genetics and chromosomes. Only ostrich head-in-the-sand anti science culture would be truly anti- sexist.

yup that's my opinion, no such thing, I never used the term even though you incorrectly attributed it to me and continue to lie about it.

lie, I've explained there can be consequences for speech even if it's protected by the B.O.R.s how you don't know this is mind boggling,  for further explanation raise your little hand and ask your teacher.

I already said you were pedantic, issue settled

I'm not interest in philosophical discussions in the political forum.

I'm not judging him one way or the other based on one comment, you are.

How do you know he thought he was off-camera?

I'm YangGang. I'm an economic populist and a social traditionalist, but right now I think that it's more important to tackle the economic side, because capitalism destroys traditional economies via Schumpeter's gale. If the Dems nominate an economic populist I'll vote for them, if they don't I'll vote Trump.

wow that's about the lamest attempt to backtrack I have ever seen, yup I never used the term hate speech just like I said, just because something is offensive or morally repugnant doesn't mean it's hate speech, because there's no such thing as hate speech, what you actually did was wrongfully assume and then made false accusations on that wrong assumption turning into and perpetuating a lie and put words in my mouth.

see previous reply, yet another distortion of the truth and another lie

no changes need to be made to the 1a is that plain enough for you now?  perhaps you should have asked that first before the lies?

that's the point of the thread YOU created LOL your attack on Crowder for a joke he made, then you split hairs by labeling him a political commentator like that is relevant.

children can often be pedantic, had I known you were a child I would have tried to be more specific and dumb it down more to avoid that.

um, seriously?  Are you not familiar with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights?  control?  wtf are you even talking about?

you labeled him a sexist, sounds like a personal attack to me.

What if he has other videos that show him not to be a sexist, what then?

lie, where did I ever, ever use the term hate speech or that joking about a veteran is not allowed?  You can't quote it because your statement is a lie.

But if you want to equate what he said to making jokes about wounded, disabled vets as being the same thing, we obviously have vastly different moral compasses.

lie, I've explained there can be consequences for speech even if it's protected by the B.O.R.s how you don't know this is mind boggling,  for further explanation raise your little hand and ask your teacher.

Yes I find what SNL had said and done far more offensive than Crowder's statement, but not once did I ever say they didn't have the right to say it.

lie, again nothing you can quote hence just another baseless lie

wow, you don't think speech has consequences even if it's protected as free speech?  what planet do you live on exactly?

You see grown ups do make jokes like that, joke as in they don't really mean what they are saying.

lie, I said grown ups (some since you'd just going to be pedantic) make or have made sexist jokes and or comments.

what I wrote was "keeping the b.s. in your mouth instead of spewing it on the screen."

if free speech isn't protected then it can't be free, speech is protected by the 1a, you are very confused.

so one joke labels him as not believing in equal rights?

ah so this is some kind of personal attack on Crowder, now it makes sense.

I just want to hang bankers and go back to the Latin Mass =(

The bottom line is Tulpas are real.

your comprehension is like grade school level, I think that's where the problem is

what I wrote was "keeping the b.s. in your mouth instead of spewing it on the screen."

you accused me of things that are not true, hence you are a liar, I didn't make you say those false accusations you did that all yourself as children often do.

Let's say you are in school sitting at your desk with all your little friends and you start yelling profanities.  While that is free speech do you think there would be consequences for doing so?  As I said there are consequences even for protected speech which does not mean I "don't believe in free speech" as you wrongfully claimed aka lied about.

that's not true, you so far are the only proven liar.  but you always have the opportunity to correct yourself.

you have yet to explain what you mean by Crowder showing his true self, what actions lead you believe he portrays himself one way but is really something else?

do try to explain if you can.

what does that have to do with anything?

trying to keep up the lie still?  try harder

keep trying to twist the truth and maintain your lies.

perhaps you are not familiar with the different types and labels for humor "off color" "dark" "sarcastic" just to name a few and yes adults to say things they don't really mean as a joke to elicit a reaction or over exaggerate a point.  When you become an adult perhaps you'll understand this type of societal interaction and expression.

Focus more and keeping the b.s. in your mouth instead of spewing it on the screen.

such as one I can't find a citation

so says the one who started the thread LOL 

more selective moral outrage

wow, you don't think speech has consequences even if it's protected as free speech?  what planet do you live on exactly?

the Left thinks there's such a thing as hate speech because it makes people feel bad etc

you earn a quote

"KingLaddy01

I don't have time to decode your autism. Either start making sense or do not post at all." 

you'll have to ask the person who started the thread that was angered enough by a comedian to start this.

I would say that knowing falsehoods is practical and logical as it can grant you proof by contradiction of it's logical negation. 

What's the point of discussing it if it's false?

I'm far right, and Steven Crowder, Candace Owens, and Ben Shapiro radicalized me. These hateful extremists are far too violent and malicious even for me; I disavow them all.

examples

You criticize Crowder for a sexist joke then I ask you to do the same to SNL for what they did but you won't because you've labeled Crowder a political commentator instead of a comedian

even a political comedian, as if being one or the other makes any difference.

You won't citizen SNL because they are a comedy even though everyone would agree what they said was far more egregious.  The selective moral outrage you show is very sad, you are blinded by your ideology.

Yes I find what SNL had said and done far more offensive than Crowder's statement, but not once did I ever say they didn't have the right to say it.

Do all leftist distort the truth and lie or just you?

I'm generally not a big fan of callout videos. They usually end up being strawman infernos.

The difference between the left and the right is the basket. People on the right don't use baskets, or anything remotely resembling identity politics or intersectionality.

This is why basket of deplorables defines the culture of grouphate among the left and otherism hate. You can't simply say some people are good and some are bad. It's all or nothing.

This is also why people on the left cannot condemn the 7% radicalized Muslims in the world, or Hamas in Palestine, because they are all in one big basket according to the left, and that basket must be labeled "good"

So when someone like Trump comes along and says "some of them are good people" it's like nails on a chalkboard to a leftist used to dealing with baskets of deplorables and baskets of victims.

If you're in a political party that practices identity hate, then that's a culture I would never want to be a part of. I can disagree with individual people without creating hatebaskets.

where did I ask you any such thing?

What about the guy on Saturday night live that made fun of the congressman who lost an eye in combat?

you took issue with a comedian making a sexist joke which bothered you enough to start a topic about, I wanted to know if a liberal tv show that has been on since the 70s making fun of a wounded war veteran who lost an eye and had other injuries was on par or how you felt about it since you never bothered to make a thread about that happening and you still haven't said it was horrible or denounced it in anyway after what 2 or 3 times of me bringing it up?    rather hypocritical of you.

far-right what a meaning less label, he calls himself a comedian and identifies as one,  how many political commentators post video drinking games?  which was what they were doing in that video.

People watch SNL and Crowder for the same reasons, entertainment.

I'm not making an excuse, I interpreted it as a joke given all the women, gays, trans etc he's interview in the past.  But if you want to equate what he said to making jokes about wounded, disabled vets as being the same thing, we obviously have vastly different moral compasses.

You mean the left. The left is the party of hate speech.

The right is the party of free speech.

I flagged you for hate speech.