Total posts: 2,178
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
No way that was a one-man job. Carrying all of those guns up by yourself? DoubtfulPlus, even though he injured and killed about half a thousand people with a firearm and missed many bullets, official reports only say they found "hundreds" of spent shell casings... https://www.fox5vegas.com/news/newly-unsealed-fbi-search-warrants-show-inconsistencies-but-no-second-shooter/article_271e4eb0-eb8a-5aa6-8788-64086d8aca7f.html
I can actually believe that he brought all those guns up in multiple trips, but it’s weird. For what purpose? And then the fact that this guy was totally unknown, no known motive, and no attempts to dig up a motive. The whole thing was memoryholed almost immediately despite it being one of the most deadly events in recent history (and committed by a white male to boot.) And that Ellen interview with the security guards (who have also dropped from the face of the earth) was one of the creepiest things I had ever seen
Seems obvious that it was some kind of arms deal gone wrong and that the feds were somehow involved which explains the weird lack of interest from all parties involved
Created:
Posted in:
Speaking of Hitler, a theory I know isn’t true but wish was:
The conspiracy that Merkel is secretly Hitlers daughter
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
-Hitler didn't die in Berlin, 1945
You think he made it to South America?
I know the CIA had intel that he was in Colombia in the 1950s. I don’t believe it but what we know for sure is that a man was LARPing as Hitler in rural 1950s Colombia and at least some of the locals believed it, which is hilarious
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
It was likely the CIA.
For what purpose?
Created:
Posted in:
When it comes to UFO’s, my faith in the absolute impossibility of faster than light speed travel makes me think aliens are one of the least likely explanations.
My beliefs:
Government psyop > just confusion regarding what is actually being seen > > > secret technology from a known government > secret technology from some breakaway human group that somehow managed to remain mostly undetected > technology from a non human human civilization that exists on earth undetected, most likely located under the water > literal angels and demons > inter dimensional beings that can pop into our reality at will > space aliena
Created:
Posted in:
What are some conspiracy theories you believe? What are some you don't believe, but wouldn't be surprised if they turned out to be true?
Conspiracy theories I believe:
-General Patton was assassinated by the US government
-The official narrative surrounding the JFK assassination is BS, although I don't know what actually happened
-COVID-19 was made in a lab
-There really were significant numbers of American POWs left behind in Vietnam
-The Soviet Union held onto American POW's after WWII, and after failed negotiations they died in the gulags (this was originally in the second category, but a WWII veteran I met a few years ago who ended his war near Czechoslovakia told me out of the blue that he witnessed Americans in Soviet camps and that they never came home)
-UFO's are a government psyop
-The official narrative behind the Las Vegas shooting is BS, but I don't know what actually happened
-Jeffery Epstein did not commit suicide, and may in fact still be alive
-Joe McCarthy was right about almost everything
-The 1960 election was stolen
-The concept of "conspiracy theories" is itself a conspiracy to cause a reflexive rejection among the populace against any explanation of that contradicts the official narrative
Conspiracy theories I don't believe, but wouldn't be that surprised if they turned out to be true:
-Obama was born in outside of the United States
-Donald Trump actually won the 2020 election
-The official narrative around 9/11 is bunk
Conspiracy theories I don't believe, but want to be true:
-The Manchu's still secretly rule China
-The phantom time hypothesis
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
I think the relevant concern isn’t average spending, but marginal spending...The difference, I think, is between public goods and common resources. More immigrants doesn’t reduce how much defense is capable of protecting any given American, while more people in a house might reduce how much each current resident is able to enjoy the house because of crowding. If the addition of a person to a house, on net, improved that house, then rents would be negative (i.e., you’d pay someone to live there if they improve the environment) – in general, they don’t.As for the more general question of whether, by paying taxes to subsidize existing defense spending, the proportion Americans have to pay in taxes (including future Americans, through deficits) to finance military spending goes down – that’s probably a significant factor behind the positive NPVs.
Sure and to the finances of "the house" as an abstract entity the additional housemate doesn't matter. But the people are more important here. Having a strong military is a benefit to the citizen (whether its worth the cost is debatable but it isn't debatable that its at least some benefit.) Then there are other fixed costs to the budget in addition to the military. What you're saying is that I should be okay with immigrants coming here and getting these benefits without paying for them, even though I still have to pay, just because I was already paying anyway. If the cost is truly fixed, my taxes should be going DOWN as more people are added. If not, they can get lost as far as I'm concerned. Meanwhile more people imposes very real intangible costs on those already here. There is more traffic on the roads, public parks are more crowded, our already weak infrastructure is strained further, my kids have to compete with theirs for college admissions, scarce resources such as water is consumed, more green space is destroyed to create housing for these people, the culture changes....where is the benefit to me in this NPV calculation?
I'm not accusing you of dishonesty, but I do think the framers of the study are being incredibly dishonest. If fixed expenses cannot be directly attributed to a single individual than it would make the most sense to split the costs up, which they don't do that in their numbers. It's weird to say that immigrants are a fiscal benefit because current citizens are already paying for something they'll benefit from, and not count that in the calculation. Also the fact that these fixed costs are not split up and uneducated immigrants are STILL a net negative is really concerning, that entire immigration bracket seems like taxpayers subsidizing the ability of businesses to hire cheap labor
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
I’m not super concerned about deficits myself. In any case, given the uncertainty, I doubt deficits are the decisive issue when thinking about whether more immigration is desirable.
I'm not either, but I do think the level they've grown to here in the past couple of years isn't sustainable...but because tax rates really are quite low I think things will be okay in the end. It'll suck to have to pay more in taxes but we could probably get to a reasonable deficit or occasional surplus without getting close to what taxes are like in other western countries
I think – if I’m getting the math right – the reason each individual can have a positive NPV while the U.S. has a budget deficit is because some costs don’t vary with the number of citizens. So even if the marginal cost of one person is negative, the total cost can still be positive because it’s not summing up the marginal costs.
That's the wrong way to look at it, though. SOMEONE is consuming military spending, the rational way is to divide it up between each citizen. If you do that, it is certain that the numbers are a lot less rosy. I also don't know if military spending is truly fixed and unrelated to the population but even if we grant that
Imagine if you share a house with three housemates. Your fixed cost is rent, your variable costs are utilities, food, etc. If you take in a new housemate, your portion of the fixed cost should go DOWN! Is this what's happening with immigration to the US? I doubt it. It's not right to say "well sure they are now consuming common resources, but lets not count that because the price was fixed anyway, at least there's a 50/50 chance they pay for their utilities"
Created:
Posted in:
Here’s one I haven’t seen brought up:
It’s absolutely imperative that we find out WTF is wrong with our food and water supply/what else is contaminating our environment
obesity rates have doubled since the mid 90s. Male testosterone and sperm counts have declined by 50% over the last generation or so. Men are physically weaker than their recent forebears. And looking at the youth today a lot of them just look…sick. Overweight, androgynous, doughy, ridiculous levels of mental health issues…something deeply disturbing is happening. I’m fully on board the endocrine disrupters train
We need a complete and total shutdown of processed foods sliding down our gullets until our very foolish leaders can figure out what the hell is going on
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yes, I think really what happens as a teenager is that you realize how flawed and incompetent adults are but you aren’t mature enough to realize that you probably wouldn’t do that much better. The system is so obviously flawed, surely it isn’t the best we can do. Radical change is needed. Then as you grow you get into positions with even a modicum of responsibility and find that you’re making the same mistakes your elders did.
And as you get older and take in more information you do eventually get wiser to the flaws of whatever your ideal system is
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
First, the U.S.’s population is aging a lot, and it needs more workers to pay for entitlements through taxes. Roughly two-thirds of American social spending is on very young children and seniors (who don’t pay taxes) – immigrants, in general, are neither. In fact, as the population of domestic U.S. taxpayers decreases, it needs enough young people to take on the load in the future.
The US has super low tax rates, though. The projected social security funding gap can be eliminated very easily by a payroll tax increase of about 1% and removing the tax ceiling (rn the payroll tax ends at about $140k.) I remember when I first read this article I was surprised at how much more could be raised through modest tax increases that would be unlikely to hurt the economy: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/putting-numbers-to-a-tax-increase-for-the-rich.amp.html
I also see no evidence at all that poor immigrants create a net fiscal surplus…it doesn’t seem possible since the US has a budget deficit. Unfortunately your source is paywalled so I can’t read it but the methodology has to be absolutely tortured to get that result. The US has a budget deficit, has had one for some time, and is expected to have one indefinitely so the median citizen regardless of status can’t have a positive NPV (does anyone else feel gross talking about human beings like this? Lol.) I would bet that this study conveniently didn’t allocate costs like military spending, interest payments on debt, etc to taxpayers, or pulls some other funny trick like not considering the cost of any children they might have.
What was the discount rate for the NPV calculation? What’s the NPV of a native born citizen? How far into the future did the calculation go? The further out the more shaky the assumptions. This kind of thing is pretty silly imo
Created:
Posted in:
The filibuster is obviously stupid. It’s a bit ridiculous that you need 60% of the vote for anything to pass. I hope that Democrats get fed up with it a few months before the midterms, abolish it, fail to get anything passed anyway, then lose the senate
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
1) Eliminate the US debt while cutting taxes and not cutting social programs by increasing the number of taxpayers. The plan is below:
Can you please give a run down on this to a low IQ individual such as myself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
That makes sense. There's definitely political tribalism in India – and I’m pretty firmly opposed to the current Indian government, which I guess you could call tribalist, though I’m open to admitting that the opposition is weak and scattered – but there’s many political parties, a much larger fraction of swing voters, and a lot of regional diversity in politics, so perhaps it’s more muted.
America would probably have a lot of parties too if it was a parliamentary democracy like India, but the US system basically ensures that only two major parties will ever exist
I’ve been good! I’m currently on a gap year and am heading to college later this year. How have you been? :)
What are you majoring in? You picked a good year to take as a gap..
I am good. Got married last year, career is going well…things are looking up for the most part
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Good to hear from you. I was also a libertarian during my teenage years. No offense to adult libertarians but it does seem like as an ideology it appeals to teenagers who are just beginning to think about politics. Maybe because on a surface level it does challenge some orthodoxies as some economics stuff is pretty counter intuitive (like price gouging being a good thing) but is overall a pretty shallow and immature ideology (imo)
I was kind of hinting at it but I think what really causes political orientation a lot of times is the insane culture war America is engaged in, and has been for some time. As someone from India it makes sense that you wouldn’t have a deep seated affiliation with any particular US “tribe” and are capable of just thinking about the issue and coming to your conclusion.
Unfortunately I don’t know enough about Indian politics or culture to speculate on something you might have a pre-rational affiliation with but something is probably present in a comparable way to politics in the US. So much of the discourse in the US is just coded language for “fuck the red tribe, we are the best!” and Vice versa. Personally I think the decline of religiosity and strong local community along with the gradual centralization of power has forced people to care more about national level politics but that’s just my pet theory
When you say you’re for redistribution what do you mean by that? A global wealth tax or what?
Also how have you been doing
Created:
Posted in:
Kamala is a uniquely untalented politician to have risen as high as she has. I’m hoping that big Joe doesn’t run again in 2024 because she’s the heir apparent and I think she would have a very difficult time winning
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
But in your hypothetical you actually have three legs. A boy who thinks he is a girl is not actually a girl. A better comparison is an able bodied person who believes he is handicapped competing with actually handicapped people.
The conservative response to this CANNOT be to make peace. “Well we can just have a separate division for them and everyone would be happy.” No. This trend needs to be fought with everything we have. This suggestion concedes that there are enough transgender youth to fill up a division. Instead of passively trying to make that reality work we need to find out what happened and how we can stop this absolute madness
Created:
-->
@badger
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
No offense but this is why conservatives lose. Always trying to make peace and compromises. Understand that by advocating for this you are accepting the idea that there are enough transgender youth to justify it in the first place. This is something that was unheard even when I was growing up, because in a vacuum it simply does not occur among children outside of a few vanishingly rare cases, because traditionally gender dysphoria is a sexual fetish among men who want to be perceived as women.
The entire issue is a symptom of something much bigger and more impactful, which is the deconstruction of identity by mass society and the public schooling establishment. It’s gotten to the point where people don’t even feel comfortable identifying as their own gender, something that was quite literally unthought of until recently. Kids are being sterilized on untested and dangerous drugs to suppress puberty and instead of going after the public schools with righteous fury, conservatives try to make peace. Come on. If there’s a hill to die on, this is it.
Created:
they actually tried this when DDO was first made way back in 2007. I will see if I can find the article but the creator invited Obama and McCain to do a virtual debate. It didn’t happen of course
Created:
Posted in:
What did you think of my vote on your debate with coal about systemic racism? Was it too harsh, or did it provide you with valuable feedback?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
You must seize power. This is your moment
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I donated to the Patreon for a long time, until I forgot my password and it got cancelled because I got a new debit card. but how would they know it was me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Can Wylted pay an indulgence to the Patreon in order for a restored account?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Whether or not there is an objectively correct position on every issue or if everything is subjective isn't really what I’m trying to go after with the OP. I’m curious what causes people to think the way they do in the first place. Even if they are objectively wrong…why? What causes them to think that way?
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Is this really the way to go about having a productive conversation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
This is an incredibly autistic answer but this manifesto from a literal terrorist explains the psychology of a certain kind of leftist better than anything else I have ever encountered https://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/materials/Industrial%20Society%20and%20Its%20Future.pdf
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Sure. But the real question is what causes political affiliation
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
And also, and I mean this in the most respectful way possible, if you think that your positions just come from a willingness to embrace the data and change your mind…well, unless you’re one in a million they don’t. I’m sure some do and you deserve credit for that. But you’re a human being just as susceptible to bias as everyone else. The question is where do THOSE biases come from in the first place
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Take anti-government ideology; of conservatives today: If some random socialist policy did not cause the problems you thought it would, and actually helped in the way expected; would this change your mind?
People can change their minds yes. On certain questions there are objective (or close to) answers, like does a certain policy achieve its stated aim. But the trick is deciding the aims in the first place, and determining if THOSE are good. Take something like immigration. Everyone talks about economics or whatever but what it almost always boils down to in actuality is differences in what people want the culture to be like. I don’t think there is an objective answer there
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Not to be that guy but did you ever stop to think that different hardware they’re running on is just blatant ignorance.
I have but how can I determine if its theirs that is faulty, or mine?
And this difference shows up in other, non political ways. There’s a reason that cities are deep blue and rural areas are blood red, yes there are different incentives and policies that explain a lot of the difference but it’s also just differences in living preferences. I would never want to live in an urban big city high rise, for other people (who overwhelmingly lean left) it’s a lifelong ambition
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It’s a good question. Basically what I’ve been grappling with. I do think that given certain sets of principles there are objectively correct positions. And I believe in an objective morality, which would mean that at least some policy decisions have objectively correct answers. But that’s just really difficult to accept when I realize that the opposition might literally be running on different hardware that causes a different world view: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/conservative-and-liberal-brains-might-have-some-real-differences/
I don’t know. What do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I dont think it is objectively wrong, necessarily. thats my point
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I haven’t read the conversation so I don’t know who got more heated. I also don’t know Ram at all. I have a very vague memory of him from DDO that isn’t positive or negative. I was just deflecting a bit of criticism in your direction from greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Fair enough, I did not read the entire conversation haha. But I think it’s a rabbit hole not worth going down. His definition of fear isn’t ridiculous (like if he defined it as a synonym of happiness or hunger), more productive ways to spend your time imo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well I’ve pretty much only interacted with him in his ama thread so I don’t know enough to say. I wouldn’t say he was polite but I would say I enjoyed our interaction (don’t think he did though.) At the end of the day he is incredibly young, so I have a lot more patience. I can only speak for myself, though
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I’m not sure what exactly you mean, but he’s a kid so I try to be as patient as I can with him
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Wouldn’t it be easier to just say “not sure I agree with that definition of fear, but if that’s how you define it I think that is/isn’t a reasonable explanation for the ultimate cause of politics”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I would say “interests” is probably a better descriptor than fear but we are broadly on the same page. People choose their affiliation based on what they want, who they are around/value, what they fear, etc and then rationalize how actually their positions are the side of objective reality and they came to these conclusions intellectually!
But the deeper preferences that actually drive political affiliation don’t really seem to be that easy to modify. That’s why I would recommend everyone try to be charitable to the people who disagree with them. To a large extent, I don’t think they can help it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You aren’t answering the question. A budget deficit can happen in any system, it just means that government outflows are greater than their inflows. How is the US deficit due to “capitalistic exploitation”? You are just dropping buzz words
“Uhh, let’s just pretend that the debt isn’t caused by degeneracy and the destruction of the family…yup, let’s just pretend those aren’t the direct cause of the debt.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Right. A budget deficit can happen in any system. It’s just weird to act like it is an inherent facet of capitalism or w/e
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
On what basis? The cause of the national debt is that the US has had a long period where outflows exceeded inflows. I don’t see how it’s obviously and directly due to capitalism
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Uuuh - let's pretend the debt isn't caused by the concentration of wealth and capitalistic exploitation by America... yup, let's just pretend those aren't the direct cause of the debt
That’s not the direct cause of the national debt
Created: