Darkpriest
-
Posts
1394 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Darkpriest
-
-
oh i am fairly sure that most governments knew. Maybe some weird scandinavians are no guilty like Norwegians of such double standards, but even then I would not be 100% sure.
-
I mean, at least don't be hypocrits... US condemns such acts in China and other places while being no better, but what to expect from gov that kisses ass to Saudi family, which is known for oppression to sexual minorities other religions and women in their country... double standards for everything, as long as it is convinient for the US government they can ally themselves with the devil himself and do things they openly condemn themselves... that's what's the most funny about it
-
2
-
-
US does not cease to amaze me. I love the double standards politics from them. At least I can have some good laugh once in a while.
-
2
-
-
Smoking is such an off-turner. The smell and those f*cked up lungs....
See you're thinking of a dowdy wreck of a woman smoking while she looks at her children as if they are flies.
I'm thinking of sultry unattainable women smoking like each inward breathe is ...well... freudian. Women on the edge of something, whether it be realisation, or immolation.
But mainly I'm thinking of women who aren't neurotically obsessed with their health.
I hate smoking in every shape or form. It's disgusting.
You'd approach that nice looking woman and then when she breathes, you'd be like: Aww sh**, smells disgusting, I need to vomit!1one
I can say with absolute certainty that this is incorrect.
If you are a non-smoker it really is not that cool to approach a woman stinking of cigarettes. It's even worse when kissing one... feels like licking an ash tray. You'd better be drinking something at that time, because it's near impossible to do when sober.
-
1
-
-
It wasn't a murder, it was an accident. What would you do in that situation?Volourn, on 04 Dec 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:
"If a guy is resisting arrest, the cops have no choice but to subdue him."
Subdue not murder. Also, they ahve plenty of choices. he chose the cold blooded murder choice. He did NOt choose 'the least vioent' method of arrest. Unless you think 'murder' is the 'least violent' LMAO
\Why do people really believe they do the cops a favor when they defend evil scumbag cops? You do nobody a service by defending pigs like this scumbag. EVIL TO THE CORE.
If you're willing to work, all doors are open. People come here with nothing, and in a generation they're in the elite. What other country can you say that about?It would be a case of simplifying if I was directly comparing a country that's rich like Norway, but has a small population, but when you compare the standard of living of a large country like Germany, with 80 million people it becomes directly comparable to the US, even though the US is so much larger.
Germany bled itself dry in two world wars and has managed in 50 years to rise out of the ashes provide a better system for its people than the US, that has not had a continental war in over a century on top of becoming incredibly rich and dominant world power at the time the entirety of Europe was turning to ruins.
Are you seriously going to argue that it was easier to solve these issues in germany (wealth redistribution, rebuilding a state, a health, education and social system) from '45 onwards than it was in the US in the past 100 years?
I am not sure what country are you living in, but it's definitely not the US with the most strict immigration law in the whole world. Do you even realize how hard is to get a sponsored working visa, not to mention an open working visa or god forbid residency status... I think you still have the legal perception of the 1930s-1950s...
-
sulky?
-
http://gamergate.me/2014/12/struggle-of-the-pen/
Muslim guy talks about being compared to ISIS because he has a problem with the state of gaming journalism.
Can you explain to me why this video is utter nonsense ?
Because the entire thing is [citation needed].
That's what I thought, you don't really have a reason to dismiss it. Its just a knee-jerk reaction because it raises the reality of harassment of women on the Internet and it appears that this view is not something that certain people who support GG want to really accept or acknowledge...or even discuss
Do you think this then undermines the objectives of GG somehow? Is it not possible to support GG but also support a video like this and the message it is trying to convey ?
If you don't see the lack of proof for said statements as "a reason to dismiss it", I honestly don't know what to say. If you want to convince me that harassment of women is exponentially more common than harrasment in general, you're going to have to show some hard evidence, not anecdotal musings.
Hold on a second, do you really believe that the harassment of women on the Internet is not much worse than the harassment of men?
Yes, because if I call a man a retard, that's rugged criticism, if I call a woman a retard, it's harassment... If I call a man a c-sucking D, it's a form of criticism, if I call a woman a C-sucking C..t, its harassment...
double standards for same abusive language create a perception where women feel more harassed... well that, plus it's trendy to be harassed or an object to sexual assault... big words, nice stories, a lot of sympathy from strangers... for nothing more than simple attention W (both male and female)
-
1
-
-
So anti's are calling for a boycott of Stardock now, and #GamerGate responded by telling everyone to buy their games. How well did that go when it was SeedScape?
Misogyny was spread by having a woman's game being greenlight on Steam.
What games has Statdock published or developed? I have extra cash and would like to support our glorious Patriarchy.
mostly 4X TBS and 4X RTS, most notably Sins of the Solar empire, Galactic Civilizations and Fallen Enchantress series. Funny, because their game profile of major titles hardly can be sexizm inducting...
-
I was kind of surprised to find that she is actually an aero space engineer.
Yeah, I'm glad to have a nice Latina MILF to look at when I......take my gentleman's time.
You Sir just made me laugh so hard that it felt awkward. Good job,... good job... :D
-
Feel bad.
One sentence....
Are they ****ing stupid?!
Of course you can be harassed, stalked, groped, etc. Sure not if you are bat**** ugly like most of those losers.... but that doesn't mean it does not happen. I've been slapped on my ass by an unknown girl in a club, I was hit on by some guys offering me a drink at a bar...
I could not go beyond the point 5 on that video, it's just too much "stupid" and real bad generalization.
-
look at T1000 from T2 and then at Chris... i think it's obvious that Chris is T1000 already, right? yeah, another T1000 would be just to make our existence miserable
-
@Rostere
1) Please do add a name tag to the first graph.
2) Please add a graph with GDP growth and also highlight things like 70s oil crisis, etc. if you can easily find these things.
-
China funds the US debtsThat is a myth. The rest of what you say above is for the most part right on though.
1) Check the purchases of gov bonds
2) Check the manufacturing plants placement of US based companies.
1) China is the largest foreign holder of debt yes. However the vast majority of government bonds are held within the U.S.. That said, who holds the government bonds however mean very little in regards to how the U.S. (and the majority of other nations) accrues and fund it's debt.
2) Irrelevant in regards to the deficit the U.S. federal government runs.
1) True, but it does affect the price
2) Directly, yes. Indirectly, it does affect it partly based on the tax acquisition. That however might be fairly irrelevant due to the size of economy. It could however affect the stock and the economy overall. Crisis comes and goes I guess...
-
Welfare is the threat to economics... please explain, why every single country, that is a walfare state (aside of Norway) has very high national debt and can't handle it?
We've got a far bigger welfare state than the US, but our debt: gdp ratio is way lower and would be even more so if we hadn't had a city flattened by an earthquake. And it ain't just Norway with their oil cash, all the Scandics are in the same situation as we and Australia are, far lower debt levels despite more welfare.
Welfare is not a large contributor to economic malaise because welfare gets spent, it goes into circulation in the wider economy. Indeed, cutting welfare usually intensifies recessions because it removes money that is being circulated which hits businesses leading to more layoffs, while people with excess cash tend to sit on it and cut spending in recessions those on low wages cannot cut spending unless forced.
When you are trying to treat walfare during the recession it's obvious that it's going to intensify it... after all you cut some souces of income and you would have to remove a lot of leeches from the redistribution system, which would have no income, because they would not be able to adapt and find new work during the recession, that's why it is important to make such changes during the high economic growth period, where such changes have lessvisible impact short term, but will benefit the overall economy long term.
-
Well it is true technically speaking, but you could of course argue that China doing so is only a minor factor globally.
well quite big populace and manufacturing region, which can hardly be replaced given the current geopolitical situation. If African countries would have chineese mentality, then that would be indeed less of a factor
-
China funds the US debtsThat is a myth. The rest of what you say above is for the most part right on though.
1) Check the purchases of gov bonds
2) Check the manufacturing plants placement of US based companies.
-
Wow. Men sure got the short end of the stick when it comes to looks.
well we had a different role throughout the several thousands years, last 60 years won't suddenly make us genetically more pretty
-
GoldBat got reportspammed and his twitter suspended.
freedom of speech at work :D
-
The push to destroy the welfare state comes from the rich, all in an effort to push the state out of businesses (both in terms of regulation and ownership) so they can take them over and put all the profits in their own pocket.
HAHAHA!!! Oh socialists and their class theories. None of it is ever based on facts; just ideology. The push to end welfare mostly comes from blue collar (I don't know if that's an American specific term; it basically means working class) people pissed off that they have to work while lazy slackers feed off the system.
Most of the political support FOR welfare comes from the upper-class communities. I can assure you in the US if you ask poor to lower-middle class people about welfare about 1/2 of them will want it eliminated, and the other half will only accept the programs grudgingly. Ask the rich and about 19/20 of them will give their complete support for welfare.
That's because neoliberal ideologues are working overtime to convince everyone that the theoretical "welfare queen" is to blame for everything. Its a project they've been doing ever since the Reagan/Thatcher era and its easy to prove where it originated. Just because some blue collar muppets took up the cause (that goes against their own interests) doesn't make them the real brains behind it.
Its nonsense of course, people have no sense of the scale at which a country's economy operates. A certain number of people leeching the system at the bottom rung make absolutely no difference whatsoever to an economy that shuffles billions or trillions of (insert currency) per year.
its easy to demonstrate how the current economic crisis and the recession are precisely the fault of the uncontrolled financial capital institutions from the housing crisis onwards. It was the result of systematic abuse that cost taxpayers across the world insane amounts of money and brought economies to the brink of collapse. In fact, it has been repeatedly demonstrated by top economists that that is in fact what happened.
Welfare itself has never been an economic threat to the system but it is a barrier to increasing profit margins and possibilities for corruption for people on the top. The money that can be made from privatizing health care and social services is unfathomably large.
The real issues is that some financial institutions created a product that bypassed the regular failsafe mechanics... they dumped bad debts into new papers which they marketed safe... the real problem was misinformed market, which then made bad decisions. This is more of a criminal/fraudulent act and it should be viewed as that. Do you see every neighbor as a thief if one of them steals from you?
Welfare is the threat to economics... please explain, why every single country, that is a walfare state (aside of Norway) has very high national debt and can't handle it? The economic crisis only opened up the eyes, that you cannot sustain systems which function in ever increasing debt loop, and that is what walfare states are right now. You will always have recessions once in a while, be that 15 or 25 years, the current system operates on the principle of trust, which is not covered by real value. This is why a lot of EU countries and the societies there are in for some hard awakening. This is also one of the reasons why US will never confront China, because China funds the US debts
-
Give people the fishing rod and learn them how to fish, instead of giving them the fish and making dependant. I will always disagree with the notion that you need redistribution. I can agree that in the case of physically and mentally disabled people you need some form of basic help to allow them to operate in the society in a civilized way, but no one will ever convince me that we need to pay taxes and give people social benefits. I don't mind the paid insurance for instances of losing a job, and equal chances at obtaining the basic education ( so basic learning materials and access to basic education). Everything else is in the hands of the individual.
I've climbed in 6 years from an intern to an Finance Manager in a global multibillion corporation, then resigned from that and went to start a career in another field after a long break and I am sure I will be successful in it too within 2-3 years. My father was starting up own business 4 times before he got successful. If I or my father, who came from poor family could do that, then everyone can do it. If you are too lazy to do that, then that's your fault, and no one elses. Do not put a burden of financing lazy or stupid people on people who worked hard to get to where they are.
As for the resources, how do you define "enough"? Enough does not equal unlimited, and as in case of everything that has limits (starting with fertile land and living space to diamonds) there will be a value. If you want socialism, you need redistribution. If you need redistribution, you need people doing that. The question is, how much reditsribution you need, and how much are you willing to pay for it. There are no "free" items in the world. Everything has its value, including human life, when you look from the limited resources perspective. There are however different value tags based on the perspective on given problems.
I've often found that people who accuse those not like them of being "lazy" are exactly that themselves and would prefer to do nothing, if they had the opportunity. I'm lazy too, I'm happy to admit - but that's not to say that everyone who fails is. Spend time with the people you criticize and you'll see they work hard for the things that matter to them. It's just that it might not be the things that matter to you...
And you general critique is still a monetary and industrial perspective - where an items 'value' is a function of the time and resources invested in it. With widespread renewable energy, it would be effectively free - with widespread and advanced 3D printing and robotics, the production costs would be effectively free.. with advanced computers, you don't even need human designers.. So what value would materiel things have then? What job could you hold that wouldn't be done better by machines in the next 100 years?
This model is making itself obsolete, capitalism is simply too effective at minimizing costs (that's a good thing). In a future capitalist society, no one can have a job, because humans are terribly inefficient and expensive. At the same time we are creating (or rather maintaining) an ideology of mindless consumption and waste, Black Friday being a scary manifestation of this - where people buy and consume products that are completely useless to them, simply because the dominant ideology compels them to (thank you Edward Bernays).
For a good critical critique of what I believe this ideology to be, see Sophie Fiennes 2012, "A Perverts Guide to Ideology". Wherein Slavoj Zizek goes through the tropes, memes and symbolism of popular American cinema, to expose the underlying ideology of western consumerist society.
There is always a value. Time is your resource as well. Unless you are dead every second you make a decision what to do with your resources, so you get the best value of the resources spent against the alternate choices you didn't make. Also, virtually free does not equal free. Unless you will create perpetuum mobile, there will always be a limitation, even if only the land on which you can build the power plants.
Unless we will create machines that operate well within the concept of empathy and can adapt on the fly like human do, you will always have the need for the human factor. If we will ever decide to create machines that look, think, behave and feel like humans, then we will come to the problem that they will want to be treated as equals to the humans in every aspect of any future legislation, so they will want to get paid and operate in the same way in the society like humans.
If you chose a different priority, don't whine and demand redistribution. It was your choice in the first place. If you are healthy and have equal rights, it is your choices that led you to your current situation as a consequence. If you don't like like it, too bad, it was your decisions, do....
I heavily emphasize that you have to have however equal chances at the start, so there can't be discrimination and there has to be education available for everyone who wants it, plus good information on the job markets... for this, I can happily pay the taxes, as well as for ensuring my safety and safety of my property (both intangible and tangible).
Sure I'd love to do nothing, but the things that I want at any given moment, but that's not possible, not until we will have no need for food, shelter and "entertainment", which needs to be provided by others
You operate with an old concept that minimizing costs is the goal of capitalism. The goal is maximizing income. You can do it the old fashioned way, through the drive on cost reductions (for example Walmart) or you can build intangible values for the customers, which in turn are willing to pay more for the same product. The cost reduction will always be limited by various factors, the other end is less limited, the difficult part is just convincing people that they want to pay more for the product, but that's why you have various branding strategies and you add intangible values, like the quality of the sales/customer/guest service. Paradoxically the human is the most valuable resource now. How well educated and motivated your employee is, is more important for your profit than the mere technology. Technology can be the same for everyone, humans diversify the value.
Mindless consumption is indeed a problem, but why are people attracted to it? I never understand people who get themselves in the debt loops, because they want some new shiny product... a lot of that consumption comes from the idea that the more I posses the higher my status in the society is... which is funny, because a lot of really rich people do not really show off with their wealth. They do not consume it, they invest it. If someone is too stupid to resist the overconsumption then it's his/her fault really...
The only real social issue I can see, is that in order to have children you want to have a stable economic situation and the demographics is one of few exceptions where I deem the redistribution of wealth as a possible solution, but it also cannot be made an excuse to not work and breed like animals...
I guess I should stop, because I feel like I am de-railing the thread
-
The boobplate has been removed! I repeat, The boobplate has been removed! Order restored! Chaos is defeated! Love has truimphed over evil!
It doesn't bother me, but to be honest, the more armored one simply looked better... sometimes less revealing looks simply better. Boobs are just that... boobs... I've seen them more times than I can count....
-
Socialism is a dream that can't be sustained, due to limited availabilty of resources and limited groups having access to those resources for extraction (due to simple geographic reasons). Socialism attracts unproductivity and beaurocracy (no productivity, costs only). The more legislation that tries to monitor everything, the more clercks you need, whose sole purpose is the redistribution of wealth, so logically this will limit overall wealth growth potential.
The problem you are pointing to aren't a result of socialism, it's monetary and cultural. We have more than enough resources, it's simply distribution that have needed, until now, to be tightly controlled... and it worked really well, we brought an entire group of people from abject poverty to excess. Capitalism truly revolutionized distribution of wealth and socialism with capitalism has worked really well up here in the north - some would say better than most other system (if Fukuyama is to be believed).
But the system is starting to show it's weaknesses in a modern economy evolving away from production and industry. Extreme waste, the fact that irresponsibility is more often more profitable, growing disparity due to ingrown corruption etc.
We need to come up with a new system - not socialist - which essentially still operates under industrial assumptions and not capitalistic.
You hardly can have industrial system where a lot of "added value" became intangible. Ask yourself why the odd walfare system worked well. Was it because when you implemented it, you were already wealthy perhaps?
Give people the fishing rod and learn them how to fish, instead of giving them the fish and making dependant. I will always disagree with the notion that you need redistribution. I can agree that in the case of physically and mentally disabled people you need some form of basic help to allow them to operate in the society in a civilized way, but no one will ever convince me that we need to pay taxes and give people social benefits. I don't mind the paid insurance for instances of losing a job, and equal chances at obtaining the basic education ( so basic learning materials and access to basic education). Everything else is in the hands of the individual.
I've climbed in 6 years from an intern to an Finance Manager in a global multibillion corporation, then resigned from that and went to start a career in another field after a long break and I am sure I will be successful in it too within 2-3 years. My father was starting up own business 4 times before he got successful. If I or my father, who came from poor family could do that, then everyone can do it. If you are too lazy to do that, then that's your fault, and no one elses. Do not put a burden of financing lazy or stupid people on people who worked hard to get to where they are.
As for the resources, how do you define "enough"? Enough does not equal unlimited, and as in case of everything that has limits (starting with fertile land and living space to diamonds) there will be a value. If you want socialism, you need redistribution. If you need redistribution, you need people doing that. The question is, how much reditsribution you need, and how much are you willing to pay for it. There are no "free" items in the world. Everything has its value, including human life, when you look from the limited resources perspective. There are however different value tags based on the perspective on given problems.
An example:
For me, my life is invaluable - I'd be willing to give all my assets to save it, but I have no real alternative for my choice. I retain nothing of my assets if I die.
For my family, my life is extremly valuable, but would my family be willing to sell all the assets to save my life... I can't be sure, because they might value for example the ability to have a shelter and food for them quite high and would not necessarily be willing to get rid of that.
For my neighborhood my life is probably significant enough to raise some funds, but I am fairly sure that they would not sell all of their assets to save my life. They value other things higher than that, so for exmple my life is worth to them less than their car.
-
Well, give it 30 years in EU and you will see the economic system collapsing or more and more riots and protests. Socialism is a dream that can't be sustained, due to limited availabilty of resources and limited groups having access to those resources for extraction (due to simple geographic reasons). Socialism attracts unproductivity and beaurocracy (no productivity, costs only). The more legislation that tries to monitor everything, the more clercks you need, whose sole purpose is the redistribution of wealth, so logically this will limit overall wealth growth potential. It's funny, that Western EU countries built their wealth on the post war free economy and in large part Marshal plan and once reached a certain wealth level decided to go for the nicely named socialism (called welfare), completely disregarding the socialism behind the iron curtain that over there it made people equally poor, aside of the people in charge of the wealth redistribution.... Now when more immigrants hit the EU and the society's demographics gets in danger of getting to elderly, you start to see the issues more clerly. First the retirment age issues, then we will see free education issue, there will be social benefits to cut out, etc. if not, then we will see the repeat of 2011 economic crisis and more countries forced to announce insolvency, and that will eb too late... if a country like France will have to do that (and they will have to unless they will push for even more cuts in the walfare state) the EU economics will suffer greatly...
That said, social tolerance and making sure that our race or religion are not a subject to discrimination is something we should strive for. It's just the socialism as the economic idea that it's flawed in its concept, but so is free capitalism. Capitalism with MINOR involvement of the government should be the goal. The minor part being critical point here, and that refers to clear laws, simple tax rules and support for science/education and renewable sources of energy, plus general public safety, i.e. firefighters, police, military and life saving emergency hospitalization. I could make a more detailed list, but that would take too much space
-
Well, I think all this test tells us is that if non-Americans were running the US, the two-party reality of Democrats and Republicans would be exchanged to one of Democrats and the Green Party.
Nah, that's just scandinavians who can't think of better because their whole life is direced by the state and ultra high taxes
-
1
-
Journalism and sexism in the games industry
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
I think I heard you slurping and moaning something like "braaaains!"