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)
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anonymous asked:
bloodandhedonism answered:
Annex everything down to Tierra Del Fuego and turn it all into US states and give everyone living there, or who comes from there, US citizenship. I’m serious.
(Annex Canada too at this rate because screw Canada, Canada is evil.)
It’s a defacto empire as is and formalizing this stuff is always good, but the genuine benefit is that as citizens, they get more legal protections and have to be paid proper wages, they can’t be screwed over and underpaid like a lot of immigrant workers currently are – presuming they actually stay here and aren’t temp workers that is. I have noticed Trump’s administration going after H2-B visas lately, that’s interesting.
Have you ever actually met immigrant and temp workers? I have, lots due to where I live. It’s a worst-of-both-worlds situation, for them and for citizens due to labor pressure being undone.
Also, if there are still people who want cheap labor that badly, we’ll see literal boatloads of people coming in from Africa, and boy howdy that’s been a familiar sight before in American history that just about everyone here won’t want to see repeated again, and rightfully so.
Well, it’s not called the United States of One-Third of North America, after all.
With the right conditions, I could be convinced to add the entirety of Mexico to the North American Union United States of America.
ironically the recycling plants catch fire so frequently that they are essentially just incinerating the waste instead of recycling it.
Post-consumer recycling of most non-metallic resources is just pointless.
There is a point, but it’s not obvious. There’s a good article on this on Cato Unbound here. The unseen benefit of recycling is to divert material away from landfills, which are expensive. So expensive, in fact, that if we charged people the true cost of landfill disposal, they would resort to illegal dumping. We don’t want that, so we subsidize garbage disposal at the consumer level, and post-consumer recycling programs are an attempt to mitigate the cost of that subsidy.
It’s putting the charge at the wrong end of the system. Put a landfill deposit on new products based on their rough contents, use the principal to buy the land and the interest to operate the landfills. Pay out money from the fund when recycling firms permanently recover waste from the landfill, based on rough contents.
Efficient land and resource usage, recycling, purchasing of used goods thereby incentivized.
And before anyone knew it, Autistic Nationalism had become a movement,
Male-dominated video games become spectator e-sports for predominantly male viewers because they sustain a different project than celebrating physical excellence. They don’t showcase a specific form of male-bodied performance so much as support a specific sort of male spectator: a straight middle-class boy full of resentment and patriarchal rage. This is and has been the sports fan par excellence.
http://reallifemag.com/jocks-without-borders/
hooo brother.
(via argumate)
why do they always write about white men like bad fantasy books talk about orcs? I mean, ‘full of patriarchal rage’?
(via 1nsomnizac)
now remember that most of these straight middle-class boys are Korean, even in the linked article, and scratch your head.
(via argumate)
no patriarchy like Korean patriarchy
(via argumate)
Koreans are the whitest boys of all.
(via mitigatedchaos)
[insert roof Koreans joke here]
(via raggedjackscarlet)
New Alt-Right faction: The Seoul Boys - Militarized Korean shopkeepers will retake Europe for Christianity.
“Supporting Putin against imperialism is the best thing I can do for myself as an advocate of the working class” is one of the most nuclear hot takes in internet history and we owe Minisoc a lot of credit for making this website entertaining
horseshoe theory tho, this is what a lot of the alt-right actually believes
Remember when Republicans pretended they were fine with legal immigration
If they don’t do something, then there is no future for the Republican party.
But don’t worry. In about ten years I’m going to be asking “remember when the democrats made fun of marrying your cousin instead of calling all objections racist?”
Maybe Dems shouldn’t brag about Demographic Destiny™ next time.
“If they don’t do something, then there is no future for the Republican party”
We can hope!
Hey, we can also hope on the effects of inbreeding
So you’re saying you agree we should ban cousin marriage even though, at least in Britain, it’s most heavily practiced by ethnic minorities?
Because I agree. Marrying your cousin is terrible, doing it for multiple generations is worse, not just with health risks, but also socially as support for extreme patriarchal norms. It doesn’t magically become good just because isolated, low-income, lower class white residents of rural Appalachia do it.
A new article by @mulcahythebaronofurga.
“Christianity went through a process of modernization during the 20th century. As new norms replaced old ones. But churches are emptying because of the loss of authentic faith.
The left will come to realize that Islam is not going to tow the line of homosexual acceptance nor will it promote feminist values. They’re valiant defenders of Islam now. But they won’t be if they become 30-40% of the religious population in the United States of America.”
“The soft populist-nationalism of Donald Trump is bulldozing through the neo-liberal headquarters. Illegal immigration is down. He’s pushing for merit-based immigration. He’s questioning affirmative action. He’s laying the foundation for a larger movement that is currently in it’s adolescence.
Capitalism and mass immigration have destroyed traditional norms, faith, and proper birthrates. A rejection of modern capitalism would do plenty for societies around the world. In terms of reviving older cultural and political norms. I’m quite fond of distributism, capitalist protectionism, and a rightist variant of Kropotkinism as alternatives to the current system.”
@awhiffofcavendish @artist-tyrant @the-orthodox-autocrat @higher-order
@dietmountainmadewka @gospel-panacea @rtrixie @theorthodoxknight
Hmm, interesting
I have various disagreements, but the real biting one is this:
It fails to account for Transhumanism.
For many years, opponents of Transhumanism have described it as techno-utopian fantasy that will never come to pass, and maybe the brain uploading part and the Singularity are, but they’ve been getting a lot quieter about the rest of it recently.
We have vat-grown organs in labs already.
We have nervous-system controlled robotic limbs.
We now have established, in a lab setting, some pretty serious genetic modification on human embryos, removing genes for a disease.
These aren’t science fiction. Only their economic viability is - for now.
Recently mouse lifespans were increased by 10-15% with stem cells in the brain, and studies on blood health with mice have also been promising (inspiring all those jokes about Vampire Peter Thiel).
There is a point where lifespan begins to increase more quickly and healthcare costs start to come back down again, where screening out genetic diseases and selecting for higher performance first hits the wealthy and then everyone else. This starts to undermine the effects of lowered fertility on more left-wing social configurations.
It undermines race, it undermines social darwinism, it undermines demand for religion.
You can ban it in Europe, you can ban it in America, but if you do, then the research will merely continue in Asia.
You might get a shift rightwards socially, but I don’t think it will look like what you expect. It will probably be in the form of a more holistic view of society where it is acknowledged that we can only afford to be kind if we’re careful not to increase the situations that required us to be kind in the first place. All the bitching about gays is a sideshow.
