SleepingSilence

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Andreyich *sigh*

They want to though.

@Andreyich

That's a stupid rebuttal. I'm sure doctors, lawyers and teachers want to feed their families too. Do we not pay them?

Or you know, just a little greed.

@Andreyich

Again, non-statement. No, it's not greedy...If others -want- to pay you. You sound very much like someone demonizing a company for making money, right now and you didn't have that opinion before.

True, but a lot of sub-par ones were made too. I also don't know how the fuck we got on the subject of a free market but w/e.

@Andreyich

Because you don't seem to understand, that people should get paid for work. And you're not old enough to be stupid enough to think, the new media and less shitty jobs aren't worth being compensated...

Again there's a lot of sub-par workers in general, they get paid too. :/ Whatever you're arguing, and at this point I'm not even sure what it is...it's wrong.

By very little, and yes it does.

@Andreyich

+12-17 points difference on average is not -very- little...

There's a billion things to modify the scores, but not significantly. Anyway most know variables i.e. this are accounted for.

@Andreyich

+12-17 points difference on average (Again, clearly not the case...) The point remains that it doesn't even measure overall intelligence well at all...

And it doesn't account that it can be changed and improved upon, how would that be the case if only linked to genes?

Yes but the point is that these tests are designed to consider intelligence no matter the environment, merely your true 'peak' intelligence.

Maybe that isn't good in America which has a lot of """diversity""" but having such a mindset in Europe is quite handy, since this helps preserve institutions that are uniquely European. I sure as hell would love it for my country to finally kick out all the Chinese flooding in.

@Andreyich

I suppose that last statement kind of just goes past anything, but spiteful racism...

But no, it CAN'T do that. It DOESN'T show your peak...I just said, you can improve your scores...

Studies have found significant increase in IQ from one generation to the other. It increases 21 points on an average in 30 years. Such an increase can result only from the surrounding environment. Hence, it is proved that IQ does change based on the environment.

You're trying to tell me, that race mixing hasn't been a thing? I'm sorry to jump in the accusatory statements, but I think you're flat out being intellectually dishonest here...

In the 1970s, one percent of all American children were of mixed race. Now, 10 percent are. The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that, by 2060, the number of multiracial Americans will be three times larger than it is now.

America may have double of it in percent population compared to Europe, (ya know because racism.) But it's growing everywhere.

And again, I point out even if there's some or any truth to the statements made, as a human being living in a productive society. It shouldn't matter. You think it does. Which is our fundamental disagreement.
You may not see America being diverse, being a good thing. But I certainly do. I love the melting pot concept. And I wouldn't live anywhere else.

And Europe is doing really nicely. Oh wait.

telegraph.co.uk/news/0/european-debt-…

thefederalist.com/2017/03/01/yes-viol…

marketwatch.com/story/europe-is-faili…

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

It certainly seems like people are living in some weird mirror universes. One side sees Trump as an utterly incompetent embarrassment, the other as a messianic figure that can do no wrong.

It is fallacious to say that the truth is somewhere in the middle, but there is SO LITTLE commonality of opinion on the matter.

@Penny

Those statements seem contradictory to me...

While I oddly also sort of agree with both, depending on exactly what you are talking about...

I think outright calling him incompetent would be the wrong word to use, since he's (was) currently running successful company. And he managed to become president without spending 100 times as much as his opponent...at the same time, people pretending he's perfect is goddamn embarrassing and it's creepy that people get cult like in real life, to celebrities, athletes, presidents. It really does sort of make a "everyone worships something" statement kind of accurate...While he's resume is a touch more impressive than handing out flyers. He also clearly doesn't lack an ego and he clearly doesn't have a filter. (and yeah, the leader of our country should probably be acting just a sh*tload bit more professional.)

As for the "there is no middle ground answer" thing. I do think it's wrong that there is a lot of grey area for most things and that the world for a lot of things isn't merely black and white. So I disagree that there isn't an answer somewhere in the middle for certain things. (Not all by a long shot.)

But I also don't think a lot of self proclaimed "centrists" aren't being particularly honest, often hypocritical, or that they aren't extremely interested/knowledgeable in politics. But that's just a personal thing from experience of talking to most people like that.

And people comparing Trump to Hitler are just dumb. There's one of the examples, where the answer isn't in the middle. It's just hyperbole. :P

@POOHEAD189 Has a lot more than the last one did. xP I won't go out of my way to say he's "qualified" But he's clearly not that dumb. It's sort of like people attacking Bush for being a C student. In fucking Yale. (and his opponent had a C- to add to the irony.) Running a business is experience in a very small scale, but not every idiot can run one for as long as he has.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Science doesn't happen over night. The idea that we should cease funding improvements to our society if those improvements are not yet competitive on the market is very short sighted. That we haven't reached the point where clean energy is competitive doesn't mean that it is impossible that it will ever happen. Until then, the Market itself has no reason to favor funding for experimentation, so development in a fundamentalist Market economy would necessarily be way slower.

@Vilageidiotx

This point boils down to, Subsides aren't good for the consumer or even the businesses themselves. That's the biggest problem.

And the market doesn't reward new interesting products and experimentation? Seriously? Kickstarter debunks the very idea that's a thing. (among other things.) People will pay and invest in good, useful products and interesting ideas. We are talking about otherwise, less useful and more expensive things that only exist because the rich are guilt tripping the rest of us that we're "polluting the planet" while living the most lavish lifestyles possible. Tell third world countries we're about to make your energy much more expensive and see how happy they are at the concept.

Again, he was a policy dude, so the idea he wouldn't sacrifice medicaid and the like to purge a bit of bile isn't that surprising.

@Vilageidiotx

I disagree that he even had a clue what he was talking about...a policy dude, who couldn't get his head on straight of what businesses he was going after.

Sounds like you're in love =p

Let's not go waaay out there and pretend Trump smashed this thing. The "Leftists are all ebil monsters and everyone knows it and thats why everyone everywhere loves Trump" narrative is a surefire way to land your own philosophy in the same type of unreality as that of the small cadre of SJW type space cadets you assume to be everybody left of center. The bitterness after the election was going to happen one way or another.

@Vilageidiotx

Like I already said, I compared Trump to Sony during the convention. All he did was what you'd think a common damn human being would expect, but the left fell so far into their own propaganda and double down constantly. Trump didn't have to do anything and he got himself elected. He was not my first pick to put it mildly.

I'm not saying that either, but certainly far more on the left acting nuts, destroying property and embarrassing themselves. They didn't even go after republicans for being "Ebil", it wasn't the "Ebil" ones who write your check/pays for the government check. 1% percent. It wasn't even the vague "rich people" who were the evil ones, that worked in every other election cycle. No, they had to go a step farther. It was every single white cis man on the face of the earth that was the problem this time. AND everyone who disagreed with them even slightly. I don't even know how she managed to get more votes from how many people that excludes...(ya know aside from the dead and ones who can't vote legally and all. *this isn't serious I swear if this is used as a quote, I'm buying bleach.*)

Bitterness after the election is a big understatement...it was embarrassing, and ridiculous and it literally is still going on to this day people whining about the election being "hacked".

I disagreed with that particular statement, but since the rest of his campaign didn't bear the anti-white thing out, and because the other candidates were by far worse, Bernie is the least f-himself-able candidate in the running. It would be too bad if we as a culture sanctify Trump and demonize Sanders.

@Vilageidiotx

He said, many more things that showed what kind of person he was. But I'm not pretending either candidate is a saint here. When you have three or more marriages, your probably kind of a fuck up, in at least one way...And Obama being treated like the second coming of Christ, and the chunk of Trump's fan base and this whole fucking worship of a political figure thing, creeps me the fuck out and shows just how goddamn cult-like politics actually is...(or can be at least.)

But yes, I will demonize Sanders because his actual ideas would fundamentally screw America. But that's my opinion I guess, and the history of socialism...

So Bernie Sanders is a socialist because he is envious that other people having three bigger houses than him? Wat? The guy doesn't make enough money to personally fund public healthcare on his own, so his income isn't really pertinent to his policy positions. You'd have to think I'm an Arch-Marxist who actually thinks everyone should make the same income for that argument to have an effect, because otherwise it's nonsensical. I mean, shit, I personally know people who make six figures. That's not mega-elite status exactly.

Also, if Trump got the funding from elsewhere, which he would need more of to cover expenses that pre-existing wealth covered in this timeline, then he would probably land even closer to Dem spending then he already did.

@Vilageidiotx

Missing the forest from the trees on that one, my point is he is a hypocrite. And most rich socialists messages are completely hollow and most of that mentality comes from greed. The rich businesses didn't get rich, by hurting poor people. They made money through a transaction benefiting both parties. The idea that you can make too much money, is ridiculous to me. Clearly not everyone, but again, if they were put in those shoes they wouldn't do it either. Or like people that win the lottery, they won't know how to handle it in the slightest, fuck their lives up and go broke. Proving that money doesn't solve always your problems.

I don't really see the logic there, but it's just conjecture at this point. So I'll say maybe, we'll never know?

goddamit. IQ tests are imperfect measures of intelligence.

@Vilageidiotx

It's confusing that you post this without mentioning anyone else. Because it seems to imply, that I disagree with that notion. So preaching to the choir, fellow canine avatar.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Andreyich Yes, youtubers make money. People need money to live. This notion they only do it for money (and that equals bad) is absurd, because most of them don't make as much money. (especially now.) It's harder than most think, you DO need some kind of passion or drive for most kinds of jobs. Just because a desk job sucks, doesn't mean musicians, artists and writers and the like. Don't deserve to get paid...

And if you really try to say the best advancements and quality products in the world weren't made to make profit. You're wrong. Moving on, to you finding it amusing that a human is paid by other human beings because they desired to...how the free market is suppose to work.

It doesn't matter what's on the test. It doesn't do a good job in testing smartness, ignoring that it doesn't factor a wide variety of things, especially isn't useful in the long term, because you can improve them. And stress when you take it, highly effects the scores...and you can't tell me poverty won't lead to that stress. You're telling me 'why is there a difference?' but are you kidding me? The environmental differences between entire countries are ridiculous. And the part 2 videos, last point is. Races are mixing more than ever and the culture now has vastly changed from when the test started in the first place. So it's becoming more and more of a non-importance. And it also highlighted that even "trying to prove genetics on intelligence" isn't just an innocent means for truth, but it almost always leads to people behaving prejudice and thinking others join this "we're better than you" mentality which is straight up unhealthy social behavior. It gets into straight up intellectual dishonesty.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

There's been a lot race realism drama online recently, that I've been observing. Several youtubers making videos of such. And one thing that I see being talked about is the race bell curve and genetics in intelligence.

That testing was done by comparing entire countries...war torn countries in Africa vs wealthy places of other countries and tried to make it about the race, and not about the poverty. But the same races had 12-17 point deviations on IQ, when comparing rich and poor. And also, one I can personally attest to myself. Anxiety can wildly vary the IQ score as well.

Though again, it's not 100% proven either way. It seems pretty clear this is an environmental/poverty issue. And is not connected to genetics. And the IQ test as it is, isn't a wholly accurate measurement of IQ in the first place.

@Dynamo Frokane You know what, this happened forever ago, but I take it back. Stefan Molyneux is fucked in the head.

(Not a perfect video by all means. (and long as fuck.) But I'd encourage to watch it. Since it's on race realism. (for the most part.)



@Andreyich I'd encourage you watch both of these, when you have nothing else to do. Because the first one is a bit boring, not going to lie. But I feel like since you do follow some of that train of thought, it may be helpful.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

At this point, the consensus on global warming does lean the one way. Pretty heavily.
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: "

@Vilageidiotx

That was in this article and that is a patently not true statement. Making me not take anything in that article seriously.

That was a shitty survey done in 2009, with 200 people and even in THAT survey it didn't conclude that. :/

I doubt that fossil fuel is the pinnacle of civilization. That seems incredibly unlikely considering all we have accomplished thus far. If it's not wind power it'll be something else. Though it is my understanding that the energy potential is mostly being hampered by battery tech at the moment.

The problem with market deification is that the market is a very limited tool that requires quick returns, which scientific research can't always be expected to produce. We cannot expect the market to do everything for the same reason we can't expect any other single portion of our society to do all the heavy lifting.

@Vilageidiotx

I think we'll find even more efficient ways to use those fuels. We've already made it much cheaper through fracking.

The EPA admits it has no proof it does anything, and the drinking water part they now claim, has been debunked.

apmreports.org/story/2016/12/13/epa-f…

forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/12/15/y…

But I'll be an optimist, and say I'd love to see alternative energy make progress because there's nothing wrong with competition. They just need to stop being subsidized, $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 25 times how many fossil fuels are getting. (and shouldn't be getting either for the record.)

forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/05/3…

forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/…

And if the product was cheap and effective, and was actually a viable source. That's made a lot of progress in you're own words, It should be able to profit without so much effort.

dailycaller.com/2014/12/08/112-solar-…

And not be this much of a futile effort.

Obama's dead alternative energy companies that literally took the money and run and provided nothing.

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

The BLM thing fit in with the "This is about the people, I want to hear your voice" schtick. If he had them dragged out that probably would have ended his career right there tbh. It wouldn't have fit his message.

That he didn't bash people for the sake of political gain seems fine to me. He stayed on his message, that was pretty much his focus, and didn't focus on attacking his opponents. Like I said, I can respect the living shit out of a non-mudslinger. If it is true he lost and Trump won primarily because Trump was more vicious, well, that reflects poorly on us as a society.

@Vilageidiotx

I honestly wouldn't defend that, but even if you believe so. Him not going after Clinton was his own undoing. Him supporting her after the fact, certainly completely went against his own message.

And no Bernie lost, mainly because his message wasn't viable and more people knew it at the time. And he was snubbed/cheated by Clinton/democrats herself.

Trump won because he would call terrorism, terrorism. He didn't call half of america, deplorable people. He won because he didn't demonize an entire race and gender for being evil and the cause of all the worlds problems. If we're going to talk about bitter venom losing an election, that's on the progressive left side. That you can thank for that.

I can't respect Bernie in the slightest, for someone who basically said "White people can't be poor and don't understand what it's like being in a ghetto" in fact, I've said it before, I'll say it again. He can go f himself.

Donald Trump couldn't have done what he did if he weren't rich. That's all I am saying. If he were normal folk, he would have had to dump money. What he showed is that celebrity and wealth allows you to get the Presidency with a smaller campaign budget. Which, to me, isn't really that inspirational.

In an ideal situation I would prefer to be an independent, of course. That probably wouldn't be realistic though... they don't usually do very well. I mean, it's what, Bernie Sanders and Ross Perot that managed to snatch national attention as Indepenents? Cool company, but not super successful company.

And yeh, that break down is pretty good, but it goes further back then that.

William Henry Harrison was a man you voted for because he drank hard liquor like a proper country boy.

@Vilageidiotx

Okay, just because I think is paragraph is implying Bernie isn't loaded.

washingtonexaminer.com/bernie-sanders…

He's a six figure socialist, so that's a touch ironic. And a millionaire. Change only starts with yourself, why not redistribute his own wealth? Because when people want to steal money because "poor" well there's always someone worse off than you...why aren't you doing anything about it? It's because it's not for helping, it's being envious your neighbor has a bigger house.

And if Donald was poor, but got the funding from somewhere else and he was still as known as he was. It wouldn't of changed a thing...But yes, it's difficult for "anyone" to become president in that sense. But I mean, it's not hard to understand why that's the case...

(I'm also not entirely sure his well-known persona, made anyone take him seriously) I honestly thought for quite a while he'd pull what he did last time, say he'd run, then never do anything about it...

Oh, I'm sure it's been more than just them...I'm not saying that it isn't a sad thing, when even Hitler himself knew putting himself in a picture with a dog would make him seem more human. People are emotional, irrational and stupid. (“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”)

What Are You Listening To?

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Vilageidiotx

redstate.com/diary/HeartlandInstitute…

However, the evidence suggests human greenhouse-gas emission are having a limited impact on global climate, with virtually all the alarmists’ model predictions routinely failing to match reality. Anthropogenic warming theorists’ climate models assume temperatures should climb alongside rising carbon-dioxide levels, yet temperatures fell from the 1940s through the 1970s, even while emissions were rising dramatically. For the past two decades, carbon-dioxide levels have continued to increase, but global satellites have recorded no significant temperature increase for 18 years.

According to the average of all climate models, Earth’s temperature should be one degree F warmer now than what is currently being measured. The gap between measured temperatures and predictions is most likely due to the fact Earth is less sensitive to additional molecules of greenhouse gases than calculated by most climate models.

Climate models have assumptions built into their design concerning the secondary effects of carbon dioxide on Earth’s atmosphere, which they assume will enhance or amplify Earth’s warming. Simpler models that don’t build in these secondary effects track actual temperatures much more closely than the complex models do, and it’s the complex models upon which climate disaster projections are built.

express.co.uk/news/science/611111/For…

Again, I don't think the science is consistent and I don't know how much is actually human impact. And the like I said, the heat will go down half a degree for 50 years at least...supposedly. How the hell does that work if humans are the primary cause?

Will/can we argue, we aren't the biggest problem, but we are a PART of it? (and the 90 percent agree thing is total falsehood.) I mean I guess that would at least maybe stop a bit of the crazy hyper rich humans are killing the planet thing. (when third world countries are bound to be doing worse...but I think asking them to rid of their gas, when they have no electricity, is a bit pushy.) when our own air, water is cleaner than ever and we have more tree's than when we first settled in America...So I think we already are doing a pretty good job ourselves, like I said, our emissions are already going down. Yet Europe's is going up and they seem to be implementing a lot more environmental restrictions. Doesn't add up does it?

Inefficient now. The purpose of subsidizing long term research now is to bring the tech to a point where it is efficient enough for the more short-term nature of the market to take over later. Right now the market can't drive it because the market deals in short-term investment. Eventually, like with computer technology before, an event horizon will be crossed where market forces can start turning a profit with the tech. This assuming you aren't arguing that green tech can never be made efficient, which would be a weird place to decide human advancement must stop.

@Vilageidiotx

I understand that's what they're trying to do, but it's proven so far to be a giant expensive sinkhole. I'm not saying solar panels couldn't help assist, but I doubt it will ever fully replace anything. But I also highly disagree with all subsides, of government picking winners and losers for companies. It makes the free market, much less free...this could go into many different directions, but I just think it would be more even competition without subsiding either side. And see who comes out on top, for providing energy, effective and cheap energy. (The answer isn't giant windmills. ;P)

Yup, meant endeared. I disagree with the coward description and find it sort of sad that you want your politicians to be bloodthirsty too. But I suppose this particular character assassination shows that even libertarians can be Machiavellian in their approach to politics =p

@Vilageidiotx

That's not what I'm not saying at all. That doesn't represent what I think. I don't enjoy that most of politics is to try to make the other side look as evil as possible. Without proving your worth and merit on your own issues and where you stand. But almost everyone does seem to want bloodsport. Or use ad-hominems like they're going out of style.

I meant he showed that he had no backbone. I don't want a president without a backbone. With things that needed a man who could say, NO. One moment was when he let two BLM protestors take over his speech, call his racist (when the dude walked in the civil rights movement.) backing down so quickly to something clearly hostile/shallow like that. I can't imagine how that would go in a more serious way. Dealing with terrorism or other nations for example. But it wasn't just that, nearly every move he made in his campaign was way too passive. That won't win elections. That's a fact. And it wasn't only to be civil either, because he bashed plenty of people, just not the people he needed to.

Nope. He didn't use as much money during the campaign because CNN covered that for him by just repeating all his speeches and campaign promises over and over and over again. But he needed to be rich to have the access that he had, to spend so much time building his political brand and campaigning without real hurt to himself, and of course to have ever been enough of a public figure to make waves in the first place. If next campaign season you or I managed to pull off the same thing, well, that would be proof you don't need money. At this point though, the wealthiest candidate won.

@Vilageidiotx

Yes, the media giving him show much screen time and everyone being so damn desperate to stop him, probably did help. But I think it was everyone's/media's behavior with the people in general that got him elected. But no, The Clinton's had way more money than he did. Donations and everything. And if I ran, it be third party. So I'd have no chance. (I'd assume same for you?) -.-

But like I said, Bush one 'because you could have a beer with em' Obama won because black and pot. And Trump won because the left pulled a Microsoft...during their Xbone 1 reveal. Telling everyone, including their fans to fuck right off and deal with it. And Ps4 Trump won by doing basically nothing. "Hello, America. I don't hate all of you. Vote me."

*uproarious applause*

#Electionsinanutshell

Men vs. Women Race to 1000

237

Sum up your week in roleplaying in just 3 words

Grimdark Roman Space-opera

@Penny

Least I'm writing?