drb91

If this is off topic, so are all topics of substance. “Flamebait” is just a term for “topic you’d rather not have on the forum”.

I don’t particularly care for the guidelines as they significantly harm the quality of conversation. You’re welcome to ban me.

Well the obvious response is that those individuals are also soulless.

Illegal immigration depresses wages because capitalists can pay under the minimum wage. Granting citizenship would increase wages for the working class. I’m fine with depressing wages above that.

Some people care about others without an end. Parties are free to exploit this.

Women work. Withholding labor is a threat to the state. Women were a crucial part of the civil rights movement. Women are absolutely a threat to the state.

> Facebook/Instagram/Twitter definitely have a better shot.

They would just clone youtube—they have the exact same relationship with advertisers. I don’t see that gaining any traction.

If you mean “ad free” I’m totally with you.

In my circles, it’s been a running joke since about 2014 that the porn was the only quality content left.

Well, it seems we simply disagree about the meaning of basic english words like “border” here, so I’m going to bed.

I have no clue what people envision when they considering a secure border. It’s impossible.

Ahh yes, the old “deport all undocumented residents or have open borders” false dichotomy. As if securing a border is possible. Just make it mildly difficult and that’s gonna be the best bang for your buck. Wow! We already solved it!

Wtf did forced integration come from? There’s cultural variation everywhere and it rarely corresponds with political borders (or happens as a consequence of it I suppose).

Those stoners keep rioting! Throw ‘em in jail and ignore their skin color.

So we can discuss men but not women on this forum?

Is this a joke? Half the damn comments on this site are entirely unsubstantiated bullshit and you’re enforcing the rule on THIS comment which doesn’t even make a claim to be substantiated?

If you’re claiming it is without substance you’re simply erasing sex, which is OBVIOUSLY A SUBSTANTIVE CONCEPT.

The point is to get rich people elected. Xenophobia is one means to this end, and deportation is one manifestation. I don’t think I’ve met an undocumented resident I wouldn’t fight for; I’d much rather deport citizens who conspire to lower wages, like Eric Schmidt. That’s goddamn unamerican.

The idea of nationality is pretty silly too.

Are there transcripts anywhere outside youtube?

> It doesn't seem much different from the way you're already required to show your physical passport and they check your photo manually.

Well, now they can check your identity anywhere with a camera removing all agency. Yay!

Landlords have been taking cash from the pockets of people who actually labor for millennia. Stealing? More like emancipating.

Hell let’s aim for six. I doubt I’d get anything less done.

Who am I to judge the quality of your life? Nobody can judge that but you.

Problematic to mental health professionals, maybe. Not everyone aligns their life around the same values of western medicine.

> Capital is necessary but not sufficient for innovation.

Yes, this is true. My point was more that innovative products are profitable, not necessarily the novel tool we need. See: smartphones and walled garden app stores. Innovative for sure, but an objectively shittier scenario than one built around the tool people want to use.

I don't see innovation (as in, using market forces to push forward technology) as playing any role in collective problems. The regulated market's popular hope for fighting global emissions with market effects, the carbon tax, will do very little to slow emissions on a global scale. We need to think outside the market to have any optimism.

I don’t subscribe to asceticism in the least, but the perceived benefits and dangers are subjective and unlikely to be shared with health professionals. What you are referencing sounds like a similar situation.

I believe the least painful life is lived on the middle path so I broadly agree, but not all will.

I thought the primary advantage tesla cars have over others is the charging network—these cars are already easily differentiated.

I’m also sure people are enthused about quality and self driving but that doesn’t do much for me.

It’s really hard to be optimistic when the good these companies do is bound by the same market dynamics that feed many of the crises we face today. I don’t like Musk, but I’m at worst neutral about the companies; what would optimism look like here in the best case scenario for carbon impact? SpaceX is cool but I don’t see it as the shortest route to solving any major problem we have. Same with the boring company—the impact will not be in the places that are facing a crisis. Sometimes it feels like optimism here is distracting from very hard problems. That’s not the fault of any single people or group of people it’s just the way the world works.

I really agree about the tone thing, these conversations are toxic and unproductive.

It might help if we stop referring to rich people as bold—it is honestly difficult to spend the type of capital Musk has access to, and he would have to intentionally give it away to be poor. What’s the risk? Not a risk most can empathize with.

I agree, but it seems silly to assume that offices are peak productivity for everyone—this is a common excuse for not allowing remote work. Some of this is understandable but it really comes down to resentment between remote vs in person.

Actually yea, the modern sense of innovation exists as an idea to serve capital. See: Joseph Schumpeter. The non-capital bound version is simply invention.

Agreed.