Oceans Yet to Burn

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[onecornerface]

I know some super-edgy far-leftists who are kind of assholes online but are the sweetest people in person. In person they’re willing to show more compassion, discuss more nuanced details, and express more uncertainty–while online, they easily get pulled into macho woker-than-thou posturing. I imagine a lot of the people responsible for Bad SJ Discourse are kind of like that.

A lot of internet people who are jerks and upset me are probably people I’d like if I talked with them in person. This does NOT justify this sort of online behavior. But thinking about it this way helps me find it less upsetting.

Sometimes the person is an asshole whose real self comes out only online. But some people are also really nice, and their real self gets masked online. And of course, in some ways, the in-person self and the online self are both the real self (as well as a masked self)–and it is an entity whose quality is very mixed.

[the-grey-tribe]

If being mean comes naturally that’s one thing. If you have to put effort into being mean, whyyyy?

[mitigatedchaos]

eXCUSE ME but being mean to the outgroup is completely morally justified, you aren’t some secret outgroup member …R U?

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[mitigatedchaos]

Pull lever, publicly announce commitment to hardcore militarized Yakut ethnic separatism, baffling all observers simultaneously.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[mitigatedchaos]

Here, bonus hot take @ranma-official might agree with:

Actually, employees burning out or dying is an externality.

The company profits from the temporary boost in productivity while destroying the future economic value of up to an entire lifespan, denying other companies and the economy as a whole future production. As employers do not own employees, this creates a Tragedy of the Commons situation, justifying the existence of state interference. (etc)

[shieldfoss]

“Externality” is not just a word that means “bad thing” you buffoon, you fool, 

[mitigatedchaos]

Ssssh, I’m trying to sneak ultracaps into admitting employment laws may potentially be Good.

[mitigatedchaos]

Anyhow, the purpose of this hot take is to point out that while it is in the interests of every company to induce burnout and risk death if they can pass the costs of dealing with that onto someone else to get more productivity - families, society, the state, other future companies - much like it is in the interests of every company to emit pollution if they can do the same, it is in fact economically destructive in ways that may not be adequately represented, and, while not an explicit subsidy, could have effects like one.

If one dude would generate three million dollars in economic activity over his life but dies one third of the way through his career, two million dollars of economic activity is not generated. This is very often due not to being genuinely suicidal for the job but due to a mismatch in negotiating leverage.

Considering what a spectacular waste of resources this is, it could make sense to require employee death insurance to ensure that the costs - to everyone else - of getting dudes killed is reflected in the price of goods and services. (After all, the State spent a lot of money educating that guy, his family spent a lot of money raising him, humans depend on generations, etc, so goods from Sparky’s McDeath Factory should only be chosen over Reasonably Cautious Joe’s Factory goods if they really do present enough of an advantage to outweigh this.)

It also matters why people get killed. Some jobs are just more risky, but without labor protections it’s likely often because some power-tripping bastard did something stupid and ignored obvious warning signs. People might die but at least let’s not be stupid about it.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[mitigatedchaos]

Here, bonus hot take @ranma-official might agree with:

Actually, employees burning out or dying is an externality.

The company profits from the temporary boost in productivity while destroying the future economic value of up to an entire lifespan, denying other companies and the economy as a whole future production. As employers do not own employees, this creates a Tragedy of the Commons situation, justifying the existence of state interference. (etc)

[shieldfoss]

“Externality” is not just a word that means “bad thing” you buffoon, you fool, 

[mitigatedchaos]

Ssssh, I’m trying to sneak ultracaps into admitting employment laws may potentially be Good.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Here, bonus hot take @ranma-official might agree with:

Actually, employees burning out or dying is an externality.

The company profits from the temporary boost in productivity while destroying the future economic value of up to an entire lifespan, denying other companies and the economy as a whole future production. As employers do not own employees, this creates a Tragedy of the Commons situation, justifying the existence of state interference. (etc)

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[mitigatedchaos]

Did U Kno?: After 200 generations, ancestral Europeans have evolved a camouflage pattern that allows them to easily blend in with beach sand, allowing them to effectively hunt favored prey species such as beach umbrellas and six-pack brews.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Yes I know I’m releasing what seems like DLC for Alt Right, but I swear I’m not the original developer - these are just free, optional mods you can install on your personal AltRighter or friends’ AltRighters! Neo-Chinese Ethnic Nationalism and Koreans Will Retake Europe for Christ are just my takes, as a modder and an artist, on the potential of the original game.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[mitigatedchaos]

@ranma-official

The reason the conservatives do not support a gun registry, which would otherwise be an entirely sane idea, is that it’s the first step in “round up all the guns.”

There is no “round up all the guns” without first knowing their locations.  Going house to house doing a deep search is prohibitively expensive.

They’ll just hide them.  There are so many guns in this country, the round-up won’t even get half of them.

Any event dramatic enough to make the current crop of conservatives agree to round up all the guns isn’t going to be small, either, and most of them would involve said conservatives not wanting to give up their guns.

Mass shootings?  Mass shootings by Muslims?  Not enough.  The response has been to want guns even more in order to shoot back.

You’d need something bordering on an ethnic armed insurrection, at which point many of them would want guns to fight against the ethnic armed insurrection.

[mitigatedchaos]

It’s true that this hasn’t always been the case in the past, that previous gun control laws were deliberately racist.

However, the clock ticks Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican.  Do the GOPpers trust that the following Democratic President will have their best interests in mind once the guns are gone?  I’m guessing no.

So the kind of event we’re talking about, the one that convinces the current conservatives in this country to yield their firearms (and not bury them in boxes in their back yards) is likely one where Leftists start talking about how they need guns…

[rendakuenthusiast]

Trump’s election made a lot of leftists start talking about how they need guns, although I suspect that group of leftists wasn’t the same group that strongly cared about gun control previously.

[thathopeyetlives]

Grotesque fantasies about how leftist radicals could “turn gun-ism upon itself” are definitely a thing that exists. 

Some forms of the unpleasant “urban containment doctrine” would benefit from some kinds of “gun control” though the idea would be to deny guns from enemies. 

[warpedellipsis]

So….it’s claimed that it’s really really easy to get a gun from a shady source, that laws against guns wouldn’t matter.

Why then don’t those people just deny they have guns an go buy from those so easy to get criminal access places, if gun control did get passed? That’s exactly the fantasy they have in their “I need my gun against the gubmint” rhetoric.

[mitigatedchaos]

Well it’s claimed that it isn’t that difficult to buy a black market gun in Europe, but then I’m not the black market type and neither are most of them. But where this falls apart from their perspective should be obvious - why go buy a gun on the black market and depend on the black market when you can just not have gun control? They don’t have criminal contacts, they don’t want criminal contacts, and all those guns have to come from somewhere anyway so what benefit do they get out of it?

And what’s more, the kinds of people that bring up gun control after every mass shooting insist that the number of deaths from terrorist attacks is too small to justify stricter limits on immigration, even though mass shootings, the kind that make the news, are also fairly rare on a per-capita basis, and so it makes sense from their perspective to guess another motive is at work.

[warpedellipsis]

I was aiming for “if it’s not going to affect it then why bother”, the same reasoning they use to argue against gun control. They say it won’t affect mass shootings, they say it won’t affect availability, it won’t affect anything. If it won’t affect anything, then we can do it. 

Idk Europe, but the shootings in USA are like 98% born citizens, white guys. Not immigrants, not even POC citizens. 

[mitigatedchaos]

Because they could still get arrested or hassled, they explicitly say it will only effect legal gun owners. They say “if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns” repeatedly, frequently. It’s like their official slogan.

You are way off on those stats, dude. Waaaaaay off. Setting aside that even PoC mass shooters make the news sometimes, like the VT shooter, the racial rates for shootings are far more balanced than 98% white guys. I’m not at a computer, so I can’t fetch the stats for you, but if someone told you it was 98% white they were either lying or exaggerating. And if you think America is 98% white, then frankly you don’t live here.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[mitigatedchaos]

@ranma-official

The reason the conservatives do not support a gun registry, which would otherwise be an entirely sane idea, is that it’s the first step in “round up all the guns.”

There is no “round up all the guns” without first knowing their locations.  Going house to house doing a deep search is prohibitively expensive.

They’ll just hide them.  There are so many guns in this country, the round-up won’t even get half of them.

Any event dramatic enough to make the current crop of conservatives agree to round up all the guns isn’t going to be small, either, and most of them would involve said conservatives not wanting to give up their guns.

Mass shootings?  Mass shootings by Muslims?  Not enough.  The response has been to want guns even more in order to shoot back.

You’d need something bordering on an ethnic armed insurrection, at which point many of them would want guns to fight against the ethnic armed insurrection.

[mitigatedchaos]

It’s true that this hasn’t always been the case in the past, that previous gun control laws were deliberately racist.

However, the clock ticks Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican.  Do the GOPpers trust that the following Democratic President will have their best interests in mind once the guns are gone?  I’m guessing no.

So the kind of event we’re talking about, the one that convinces the current conservatives in this country to yield their firearms (and not bury them in boxes in their back yards) is likely one where Leftists start talking about how they need guns…

[rendakuenthusiast]

Trump’s election made a lot of leftists start talking about how they need guns, although I suspect that group of leftists wasn’t the same group that strongly cared about gun control previously.

[thathopeyetlives]

Grotesque fantasies about how leftist radicals could “turn gun-ism upon itself” are definitely a thing that exists. 

Some forms of the unpleasant “urban containment doctrine” would benefit from some kinds of “gun control” though the idea would be to deny guns from enemies. 

[warpedellipsis]

So….it’s claimed that it’s really really easy to get a gun from a shady source, that laws against guns wouldn’t matter.

Why then don’t those people just deny they have guns an go buy from those so easy to get criminal access places, if gun control did get passed? That’s exactly the fantasy they have in their “I need my gun against the gubmint” rhetoric.

[mitigatedchaos]

Well it’s claimed that it isn’t that difficult to buy a black market gun in Europe, but then I’m not the black market type and neither are most of them. But where this falls apart from their perspective should be obvious - why go buy a gun on the black market and depend on the black market when you can just not have gun control? They don’t have criminal contacts, they don’t want criminal contacts, and all those guns have to come from somewhere anyway so what benefit do they get out of it?

And what’s more, the kinds of people that bring up gun control after every mass shooting insist that the number of deaths from terrorist attacks is too small to justify stricter limits on immigration, even though mass shootings, the kind that make the news, are also fairly rare on a per-capita basis, and so it makes sense from their perspective to guess another motive is at work.