Recent posts by BombCog on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / GOP and DNC

Originally posted by Tulrog:
It’s not like there are a few people who have it all and the rest doesn’t have anything.

Except that is exactly how it works. There is a wealth gap between the poor and the middle class, too. 40% of the United States population owns less than nothing. Why can’t you understand that?
And different situation have different options to improve those situations.
So it would be logical to say that not all situations have options that can efficiently improve that situation, but you repeatedly deny this as a possibility. And when you’re living hand to mouth by necessity, efficiency is the only word in survival. I grew up in a household where not everyone got to eat at every meal. This was so housing could be afforded. Not every child went to college, and those that did depended heavily on scholarships, grants and loans. That means that some of my own siblings are never going to escape poverty and it will be a gamble if their children will, especially considering the wealth and access gaps are accelerating. And you have the gall to tell me that this reality doesn’t exist, because of your own doubt? You can choke on your doubt, the people are there and the data is clear.

What makes me think this way? Has anyone replied to my numbers on smoking and lottery yet?

That’s a hopeless red herring. It has nothing at all to do with economic politics. It is at best a symptom of the systems of exploitation that the very wealthy use to keep the very poor in bondage.
That’s a lot of money to make all sorts of personal improvements.

Improvements that even the middle class rarely has access to. A self-help book isn’t worth the expense to wipe yourself with, because all it does is bouy self-esteem if you don’t have access to the opportunities it encourages you to be taking.

And once again. I’m not trying to say people should do this or that. But numbers like this make me doubt the image of the helpless poor non rich man is a completely correct one. Part of the wealth gap problem is that people chose to set different priorities.

No, it’s that they have to set different priorities, in order to live through tomorrow. This isn’t complicated, but your denial is telling. Bootstrapping is as impossible and accusatory as it was in the Great Depression. Self-improvement is a luxury of the wealthy, and they dole out this luxury quite rarely to the poor out of the sole kindness of their hearts. You’ve bought into a toxic myth. Every time there’s an actual, relevant, direct citation of a statistical reality that influences the economic politics of the United States, you openly ignore it and plop down some stupid thing about smoking or television and blame the situation on that instead. You routinely put the cart before the horse. The poor aren’t keeping the television on and thus they are poor, they can do little else except try to recuperate from their second job by passively listening to the television. Your entire argument is like that: divorcing context and reversing blame. How could a sane policy ever come from a fantastical premise?
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / GOP and DNC

Tulrog, what exactly does a rich person spend their time creating, instead of consuming? I can dig up a dozen recent articles about the very wealthy taking four month vacations, the actual content of their “80” hour work weeks (spoiler: large amounts of leisure time), and even yachting when they’re supposed to be in court for the crimes they commit on a scale that makes the most accomplished bike thief look like a good Samaritan. They don’t labor in the factories, they don’t till the soil, they don’t stand for 18 hours straight to deal with customers, they don’t create marketing campaigns, or even provide loans and crooked financial schemes. What, pray tell, do the billionaires create?

The very wealthy do not produce. They “manage.” They don’t make anything, they pay people to do that on their behalf. What the wealthy possess are the immensely powerful products of political influence and economic opportunity. These are things that are not created, but cornered. What the wealthy pander is access and this is an exploitative and parasitic exchange. The top 5% of wealth holders create nothing but rules that prolong this unfair exchange, because their only real skill provided to the global economy is stacking the deck. Correcting this frankly evil status quo is what most people mean by narrowing the wealth gap. I really can’t feel like I can emphasize this enough, because it keeps getting brushed aside: the gap between the rich and the poor is the largest it has ever been, in all of human history, in every place and in every previous time. It has never been this bad, and the systems in place only serve to make it worse.

PAH just said that

[corporations] are not the arbiter of justice and social “fairness.”
But they used to be. The ridiculous obsession with wealth for its own sake is the very first thing that we must change in our societies before things like democracy, class justice, and free enterprise can even occur. There was a time when companies and the wealthy thought that they had a responsibility to risk profits in exchange for people and social benefit. This is no longer the idea, because of propaganda mills that glorify the wealthy as capable of saving us all: and yet, they don’t. The poor are more charitable than the rich. Effort does not correlate with wealth. The poor do more production per hour than the wealthy, and yet aren’t benefiting from technological multipliers to this production. The wealthy are actively working against a fair system and disproportionately gaining from a dying lower and middle class. And those at the bottom rarely see a way out.

Because there isn’t any.

And that’s bullshit.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / GOP and DNC

Originally posted by Tulrog:

BombCog skim through this article to see examples where people “won” despite a “rigged game”.

Extreme outliers. The very fact that it is so notable shows how they are exceptions, statistical anomalies that happen in any large enough sample. Note also that even though they used the same strategies as millions of others, they succeeded where others failed: showing the extreme amount of luck involved.

But that’s also beside the point. If you want to completely close the wealth gap you say something like “Everybody should have the same amount of money”.

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I am not advocating for a communistic, direct flattening of all current wealth. As you said, and I never disagreed, the existing systems would swiftly stack the deck all over again. I was merely pointing out your faulty assumption that supports your argument. The rich aren’t rich because they are inherently better people.

“The lazy deserve to be rich”. Sentences like this won’t get us anywhere.

Indeed they won’t. So why do you keep offering up the platitudes yourself? Both are sourced from you. That you offered up the second is especially telling, because it’s clearly not far off from what you believe is your opposition. The rich are not rich because of special effort, and the poor are not lazy. That is as hateful as it is inaccurate, considering how plagued the poor are by overwork and painful lives.

As for your monopoly example. I think this is a great way to highlight some aspects.


First in monopoly your actions are random. Which is somewhat similar to reactive behavior. Instead of deciding what to do next you let life decide what will happen to you and just complain about the result. The situation you are in is a result of your decisions not a series of random dice rolls.

Magical thinking at its purest. I would argue that there is no actual thing as a “decision” but that’s a subject for its own thread. How is decision making not reactive? And considering the intricacies and mass of the systems you’re interacting with, how on earth are the results anything except random? Further, the point of the Monopoly example is that the currently wealthy cannot be trusted to reflect on the methods of their success or the conditions with which they started, so they cannot be trusted to determine their own tax burdens and social responsibilities, etc. They are quite literally functioning under partial minds.

And none of this is in any way related to Donald Trump having a better start by being born into a rich family.

It indicates that he, and the money-saturated base of the dwindling Republican party, have inherently untenable economic propositions. They don’t even remember how money works with society. It’s actually unthinkable.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / GOP and DNC

That would be a reasonable argument if every person started off at the same level playing field when they were born. They got the same monetary support from their parents, the same funds flowing through their community, the same schools, the same social programs, the same opportunities after mass education is done, and so forth. But they don’t.

Even in openly rigged games of Monopoly, the winners with grossly advanced starting positions insist they won fairly and were better players. The richer you are, the less capable you are — physically — of empathy and moral behavior. The rich don’t even have the same monetary stresses.

In this age, the age in which the gap between rich and poor is the highest it’s ever been, where even a “low” rich has more money than the Sultans at the height of their extravagance, in which you aren’t considered wealthy until you can outspend most nations, there is simply no logical justification for thinking the poor “deserve” to be poor.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / GOP and DNC

Well, it already is such that those holding Congress seats can’t benefit from a salary change until the next term. It’s not technically their fault that the return rate for federal politicians is 90%.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / GOP and DNC

It only has that tone because you boldly forced it upon them. This is a very shallow appeal.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / American wymyn will soon be forced to sign up for the draft

I think it’s more reasonable to have a minimum health spec, and minimum fitness bar, and mostly vitally a minimum level of mental health. If you pass the three, then who cares, you’re in. Color, creed, sex, age, whatever. Doesn’t matter. Are you fit? Are you sane? Are you healthy? You can join the military. If my 80 year old great-grandfather can run as long as a 20 year old fresh recruit, is as distantly prone to sociopathic fits, and doesn’t have any indicators of failing health, then I’m sure there’s some biologists that want a few samples but beyond that he can rejoin the force no further questions asked. All of these guesses are far too old-fashioned. We have better and more precise instruments in the new millennium, so let them be used.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Bernie Sanders fatal flaw.

Originally posted by Bobneson:

Say what you will about him, but you can’t deny that a man of such wealth will do strongly in the economy. That’s what many most like about him.

I fully deny that a man who has had every advantage and still pisses it away is doing strongly at anything. He’s propped up by cronies. What most people like about him is that he’s a pandering blowhard using rowdy populist appeals to leverage a subset of the population that will never be convinced by such silly things as “fact” or “consistency” and instead see conspiracy and mayhem everywhere they look. He’s cultivating a base that’s been rightly ignored by responsible politicians.

Originally posted by Bobneson:

….

To me, we need a President that will do much more than “NOT take this anymore!” Someone that funds their own campaign, buys their OWN stuff and not from valuable tax payer money. And someone that will make us as a country respectable.
Someone like Ronald Reagan.

I’m sorry, like who? Is this the actual Reagan, who struggled constantly to interact with foreign leaders as more than the Cowboy Picture Man and was funded extensively and some would argue quite shadily indeed. Or is this the mythological Reagan that did the actual opposite of everything the historical president ever did? The one that tore down borders and lowered taxes and never ever lied to the public? He was a capable enough politician that it’s just upsetting how his name and actual deeds are constantly besmirched by sycophants and hustlers. Reagan was an extremist that spent his whole run in compromise: that’s leadership. But he was a mortal man, and the things you ascribe to him are plainly false.

If this is the state of the typical Trump supporter, then any rational citizen of the United States should be in a cold sweat right now. Waiting for the marching boots echoing off from the horizon.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / American wymyn will soon be forced to sign up for the draft

Now all they need to do is make PT standards identical, and we’ll have actual gender equality in the military.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The first plasma: the Wendelstein 7-X fusion device is now in operation

Originally posted by Bobneson:

We need to focus on medicines or improving current technology more than some theoretical power source.

This is pure hogwash. There is no need to force people away from their interests and aptitudes in order to focus on fields that aren’t demanding the extra hands. And more importantly, and actually quite vitally, it is most efficient to diversify research efforts across societies because a breakthrough in one field can mean little to nothing to it (say, petroleum engineers discover a way to cheaply make plastic) and absolutely everything to another, totally unrelated field (medical doctors can develop pristine and flexible bags in order to transmit fluids to a patient.) Research is not zero sum and it is impossible and foolish to say that focus on one field in particular is what is most beneficial for people as a whole.

Finally, how on Earth do you justify that research into a new power source is not improving current technology? From portable energy to magnetic manipulation to wire efficiency, this whole project is nothing but improving current technology.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Noted, and also very interesting.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Originally posted by issendorf:

I’ll leave this here without comment: Robot marriages.

Cybernetic life cannot yet provide consent. Completely different issue.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / United Nations SD Goals

Social services are not only some of the most unfunded and low-budget programs on the federal payroll, they’re also one of the few budget items that come directly from tax dollars and not debt trolling, foreign investments, or corporate interests. Can’t say that about, say, the massively overblown military budget.

So what does that have to do with the thread topic? Seems to me you’re trying to start a tangential pissing contest.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / King Barack HUSSEIN Obama FURIOUS after armed revolutionaries take over government building

Now this, this is hyperbole. “Declaring war on our food sources”? Patently ridiculous. The United States government spends massive amounts of money undercutting private business in order to foster profitable ranching and farming. Your links are sensationalist garbage, pure propaganda, complete with bold lies that contradict the publically available record.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / King Barack HUSSEIN Obama FURIOUS after armed revolutionaries take over government building

I’m not being hyperbolic, for the record. Those are my true feelings.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / King Barack HUSSEIN Obama FURIOUS after armed revolutionaries take over government building

I am surrounded by ranches and sprawling land in Texas. My folks have done burns to clear fields, get rid of trash, and combat ants. So have my neighbors, and their neighbors. I’ve also seen a “controlled” burn take out someone’s house, spread into adjacent property, and light up a nearby forest. To do that during a drought is reckless in the extreme, and they burned out federal land. It is fantastically cut and dry. So there’s the personal experience that you want me to lean on so heavily. Lighting a fire is never something routine. Fire is a very bitter slave to man, and eager to bite the hand that feeds. They did a wrong, they were punished according to long-standing laws, and sentencing has been carried out now strictly by the book. That’s the kind of justice we all sign up for when we accept the social contract.

What these completely unrelated men did in response to that is overblown, irresponsible, and frankly childish. They effected nothing and accomplished little more than spilling blood and stroking their own egos. That the accused have families is entirely irrelevant: all criminals have families. Quite a few have mothers, wives, children that they leave behind. Sometimes they steal, sometimes they kill, and yes, sometimes they burn something down they shouldn’t have.

It is my opinion that small town flyover folk have no perspective. They’re overeager to flex muscles they don’t really have and make demands of the majority of the country with all the vindictiveness you can only muster up when you believe you’re the “true” heart of something as big as the United States. That level of pride and routine small-mindedness is what caused this debacle, not some secret and vast conspiracy from the Federal government of the United States. Overblown grievances are a dime a dozen in that part of the world, because there’s not a lot else for the mind to focus on.

Here’s a fun little map for you.

Looks pretty alarming, right? Wow, all that fed owned land in the West! It must be true, then. A vast conspiracy of just four government agencies is keeping the little rancher (some of the wealthiest people in the world, but I digress) down. And who are these shadowy agencies?

The Forest Service, who create sustainable uses for camp grounds, timber forests, and wildlife refuges for land that has been gutted and overdeveloped in the more widely populated parts of the country. The National Park service, that protect the ecosystem from short-sighted exploitation and is the envy of world history. The Fish and Wildlife service, which protects native animals and plant life from overculling, extermination, and invasive species. And the wicked Bureau of Land Management, which duplicitously protects us from another dust bowl, maintaining a rotating slew of grazing lands, and partitioning space for hydroelectric, solar, wind, and other energy development. If you’ll skip the alarming sizes of the states (people are generally very bad at comparing the true size of two-dimensional objects, but once again I digress) and look at the numbers, you’ll see there’s a vast majority of public land that is actively used and ripped asunder for general economy. Except for Nevada, because it’s pretty much a craphole for living in and the government uses it for training grounds and parks. The Fed actually charges less and allows more access than private owners do to local ranchers and the like. So why the complaints? Same as usual. Self-importance and the worship of money.

Domestic terrorists tend to come from that area. Secessionist militants come from that area. Covered up murders, crony politics, nepotistic petty crime all come from that area. And I don’t give a whit about the ever-present klaxon from them about tyranny and conspiracy they can never legitimately prove. The rest of the country — the vast majority of the population — isn’t turning a blind eye. It’s just not half as paranoid. If you’re going to cite only rambling blogs with little to no sources and highly questionable legal stances as evidence against the vast stack of legitimate news authorities, legal scholars, and so forth in the mainstream, it’s going to have to be a lot more compelling to convince me that they’re doing anything more than the same pissing contest that’s been happening there for (coming up on) two hundred years.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / King Barack HUSSEIN Obama FURIOUS after armed revolutionaries take over government building

They have openly threatened the general public, so I’m not sure why you’re supposing they’re simply defending States’ Rights (which are not an issue in this, even if you believe the terrorists themselves, but private property rights) and not strong-arming general panic in order to enact political change. That’s the exact MO of a terrorist organization. The only reason that we’re not calling a spade a spade is because it’s a group of middle aged white men, and not youths, revolutionaries, or brown people.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / King Barack HUSSEIN Obama FURIOUS after armed revolutionaries take over government building

Fire is a very dangerous tool, and to misuse it endangers quite a lot. The fact that their crime was minimized means nothing. The issue is intent, as always.

When a shoplifter is prevented from escaping the neighborhood, and the goods returned, that does not lower their charges. When a spree shooter is stopped after “only” one murder, that does not lower their charges. And likewise, when the result of an arson is snuffed out before it can escape the first mile (a significantly large area of land, we forget easily in the time of easy access to cars) that does not erase what was done, nor what could have happened. Keep in mind that Oregon, like much of that part of the nation, has been experiencing one of its most severe drought in recorded history since that time. This is no small matter, and the implications of it aren’t either. A random fire during a severe drought is what has caused California to burn over and over again, killing many people, destroying millions in property, and resulting in massive ecosystem damage.

I, for one, refuse to allow any leeway in such a violent and obstinate circus as this was. The sentencing of those two was well-justified, and the terroristic acts of this later group were not.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / King Barack HUSSEIN Obama FURIOUS after armed revolutionaries take over government building

They are not “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” but a random group of homegrown terrorists threatening the police, citizens, and officials while their demands are a clear subversion of due process. These men have assaulted police before, as well as unarmed civilians, and been in firefights. They don’t champion order, but are attempting to bully others with violence. It is exactly the kind of chimpanzee anarchy that we have societies to prevent.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / if there was another world war would you fight in it?

Also little things like historical awareness, sympathy for human suffering, confidence in existing social systems, conviction in founding principles, logical consistency, etc etc. The radicalization spam is pretty tiresome. They’re not even on-topic.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Europe forcing refugees to wear wristbands for "easy identification"

You’re going to need to provide sources saying that refugees are causing rape and murder. Not histrionic blog posts speculating such, either. Actual, verifiable data. For example, the French attacks were perpetrated by European citizens — not refugees.

If you want to ask a question about “culture take over” allow me to ask you a few. Why is it a bad thing for cultures to change? How is it that you think modern cultures came to be what they were? From where do cultures develop complexity, if not intermingling? And do you honestly believe that no future culture could be as interesting, stable, or “benevolent” as a current one?

You’re practicing misinfo to create your own little scare. It’s not appreciated.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / King Barack HUSSEIN Obama FURIOUS after armed revolutionaries take over government building

Sounds like you need to look up some of the facts, yourself, collected by a much more rigorous and transparent source. Those are all pretty radical distortions of the legal issues. And your personal attacks don’t hold much water compared to his citations. This is a clear subversion of individual rights, not a crusade for them.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Climate change and terrorism

There are plenty of ways to purify water, even ocean water. It’s a backbone of American infrastructure. And what is this “our” Christianity? And since when is the propaganda of leaders the true cause for conflicts?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Polarized US Politics

Conservative radio is hardly truthful. But why are we talking about that, exactly?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Polarized US Politics

You’re still being hyperbolic. It was frankly explained that the reason there isn’t a large neo-conservative presence in academia (and conservative as you keep using is extremely liberalized, but towards things like enshrining religious law and dissolving role variety) because the mythologies don’t hold up to academic scrutiny. Any rational person would either abandon the flawed beliefs, or sadly avoid the environment. At no point did anyone imply, intimate, or construe that behavior with

there[sic] minds will explode when faced with all that liberal awesomeness
nor
conservatives aren’t as smart as liberals
. If you’re going to make things personal and begin making things up to get mad over, no discussion including you is going to get anywhere at all.