Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Socialized Medicine Always Raises Costs

On the Left, there are always cries for socialism because that philosophy distills to "economic equality," which furthers the peer pressure desire for equality, because with equality, there is no longer conflict within the group and this enables the individual to do whatever they want and to force the others to accept the externalized costs. Socialism just formalizes that.

We have no shortage of sagacious Europeans telling us how socialized medicine is "cheaper" because look, they did not receive a bill for a certain medical procedure. What geniuses! They do not mention that other people's taxes are paying for this, and that Europeans are fleeing the continent because of its high taxes, much as they once fled it to come to America. If you penalize productivity, you get an ingrate herd of do-nothings.

But somehow all of these wise Europeans have disappeared when the Obamacare bills have come due. Perhaps they did not understand the greater challenges in America... or perhaps they finally noticed that all of their nations are bankrupt, too, and did the same thing every socialist-tinged economy does: ignore infrastructure to pay out benefits to useless idiots, while penalizing the productive enough that they flee, leaving behind a vast herd of takers with not enough makers.

Socialized medicine always raises costs. You are no longer paying for your own medical care, but that of another person at least. And his attorney, and the government's attorneys, and attorneys at the hospitals and working for the doctors. And a legion of bureaucrats, usually obese and unintelligent, to file paperwork and talk to people on phones. And the set-aside by hospitals and doctors to cover the amount of care each year that will not be reimbursed in time. And the paperwork the doctors, nurses, attorneys, and bureaucrats must file. On and on it goes.

Obamacare savaged the American middle class. The typical Leftist voters -- women, the young, and minorities -- did not notice because they are the 47% who receives more in benefits than it pays in taxes, so for them and in the short-term only, it is a "good deal." But like all snake oil sales, eventually the scam is discovered, and then there is hell to pay.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, December 10, 2017

Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism by James Theodore Stillwell III (2017)

As mentioned over at The Nihilism Homepage, James Theodore Stillwell III wrote Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism as an introduction to basic nihilism in a moral and political way, meaning that it breaks the reader outside of the kiosk of moralizing about what is "good" or "evil" and starts the process of analyzing power, consequentialism, preference, and other real issues in the question of will and how it is applied.

The initial reviews are encouraging:

As you read this book, leave your pride and preconceived beliefs at the door. Withhold judgement until you have finished it. Have open-minded skepticism towards what you read and I am sure you will see the foundations you once held dear slowly crumble away. James makes no apologies in this book, your worldview will be challenged and if you are fortunate enough, you will be set free from the chains of moral realisms. — Matthew Ray

James Theodore Stillwell III enters the fray with Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism, a short book which affirms a Nietzsche- Redbeard view of nihilism as the need for the individual to not be ruled by the herd, and find meaning where it is relevant to the individual... Stillwell writes in an open style, merging contemporary idiom with philosophical language, that allows the book to introduce a dense concept and then breathe as it explores its depth at a more leisurely pace...

The book affirms the basic idea of nihilism through a study of morality which it rightly views as conditional. That is, if someone wants to survive, they must eat; however, there is no universal commandment that all must want to survive. With that in mind, Stillwell dispenses with the idea of objective and subjective morality, and focuses instead on the morality of survival and self-expression. — Brett Stevens

To these, it makes sense to add that this book is an easy and vivid introduction for those who have never experienced life outside the moral kiosk. When we remove morality, the question moves from being a social standard -- "what would the herd think of me?" -- to a realistic one, namely, "what will the results of this action be?" that both implicates the short-term as the socializing standard does, and the long-term as the ancients did. View Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism as a quick kick to open the door to all thinking outside of the herd.

A first look at the book shows an understated but powerful cover. From the Amazon hardcover version:

The paperback version has a similar appearance, maybe looking more compact like the combat version that it is:

The first thing that most will notice about this book is that it reads easily without falling into mainstream-style self-help language, gushing big media emotional-speak, or even the horrible style of blog posting that has become popular over the past decade. This book speaks plainly, and gives you real-world examples instead of airy philosophical parables.

Its greatest strength perhaps lies in its willingness to systematically pound down the various objections and mistaken conceptions of nihilism which moving point-by-point toward a clarification of what nihilism is, since most people are baffled by the idea of a philosophy based in the idea of nothing or nothingness. It sounds like a self-contradicting failure, when in fact it is a gateway to seeing around the stupefaction of the herd.

As the reviews have it, Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism opens up the door to further explorations in nihilism, including Nihilism:A Philosophy Based In Nothingness and Eternity, which shows us a path out of the modern befuddlement and into a world where we can again be both realistic and aspirational.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Reddit And Twitter Announce New Censorship Rules, And Reddit Admins Remove Post Pointing Out Leftist Bias

We all know that social media is basically Internet Relay Chat (IRC) for the twenty-first century, in that instead of going to a website with updated content, new items scroll across the screen in order to keep the user constantly entertained; it is "push" content, where without user interaction new material appears, instead of "pull," where the user must select content or content areas to see what updates have been posted.

Social media sites face a difficult reality: users have different interests and some users are abusive. Over the past decade, social media sites have attempted to equate the two, so when values clash, the minority view -- whichever opinion is shared by the fewest number of people -- is removed. This has accelerated with recent changes to the rules on sites like Reddit and Twitter, who are trying to internally legislate away content that upsets people.

Wired tells us that Twitter has implemented new filtering rules designed to weed out controversial content:

Last week the company disabled features of actor Rose McGowan's account at a crucial moment amid the Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct scandal. Groups of women boycotted the site for a day in protest. Twitter's typical response to complaints about hate and harassment is to affirm its commitment to transparency.

The new plans stop short of sweeping measures, such as banning pornography or specific groups like Nazis. Rather, they offer expanded features like allowing observers of unwanted sexual advances—as well as victims—to report them, and expanded definitions, such as including "creep shots" and hidden camera content under the definition of "nonconsensual nudity." The company also plans to hide hate symbols behind a "sensitive image" warning, though it has not yet defined what qualifies as a hate symbol. Twitter also says it will take unspecified enforcement actions against "organizations that use/have historically used violence as a means to advance their cause."

The leaked email to Twitter's "Trust and Safety" council includes new rules against content that "glorifies" violence:

Tweets that glorify violence (new)*

We already take enforcement action against direct violent threats (“I’m going to kill you”), vague violent threats (“Someone should kill you”) and wishes/hopes of serious physical harm, death, or disease (“I hope someone kills you”). Moving forward, we will also take action against content that glorifies (“Praise be to for shooting up. He’s a hero!”) and/or condones (“Murdering makes sense. That way they won’t be a drain on social services”).

And so now we have gone into a dangerous grey area where any opinion which can be seen as approving of a violent act in the past will be censored, at least if it conflicts with the majority opinion on social media. Twitter makes it clear that this will be used specifically against some groups who are associated with violence in the past, but again, this is a matter of interpretation, and can and will be selectively enforced:

Violent groups (new)*

We are still defining the exact scope of what will be covered by this policy. At a high level, we will take enforcement action against organizations that use/have historically used violence as a means to advance their cause. More details to come here as well (including insight into the factors we will consider to identify such groups).

In human history, every group has used violence at some point to either advance or defend itself, mainly because violence is what resolves conflicts when reasoning it out does not work. Who do we think Twitter will enforce against, the Communist party or the Right-wing? Since Twitter shows a generalized bias in favor of the Left, it is likely that the Left will not see discrimination.

As if trying to prove this, Reddit recently launched its own version of the anti-glorification policy, and promptly applied it unevenly in order to defend Leftists and Leftist groups from recognition of their violence. Here is the the new Reddit anti-glorification policy:

Do not post content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or a group of people; likewise, do not post content that glorifies or encourages the abuse of animals. We understand there are sometimes reasons to post violent content (e.g., educational, newsworthy, artistic, satire, documentary, etc.) so if you’re going to post something violent in nature that does not violate these terms, ensure you provide context to the viewer so the reason for posting is clear.

As users, including some on the Left, immediately noticed, this policy is even more vague than the previous, suggesting a pretext for selective enforcement:

Reddit then proved them correct by removing a post which pointed out that Leftist content calling for violence is abundant on Reddit and admins do nothing against it:

/r/LateStageCapitalism mods about someone's Cuban parents being put into labor camps: "Your family deserved what they got"

/r/politics on the London attack: "I just hope the people who were on that bridge were redneck Republicans like you so the slaughter was justified." [+63]

The head mod of /r/MarchAgainstTrump

//r/LateStageCapitalism MOD announcement - "No one can reasonably argue that the Republican congressmen shot today didn't deserve it. They absolutely did. They created this situation of unparalleled division. They're trying to destroy society to line their own pockets."

"Let's put arsenic in drinks and slip it to Trump supporters"

/r/Socialism posts infographic on why it's important to murder three Republican senators.

[Regarding Republicans] "What else can be done?", "Going to the homes of Republican lawmakers in the middle of the night, dragging them into the street, and turning them into tree ornaments [Lynching]."[+37]

/(to commenter who's mother is a christian trump-voter) "I don't mean this harshly so please don't take it that way. The sooner that people like your mother pass on and stop voting, the better off we'll all be." [+26]

/DavidReiss666 Moderator of major default subreddits like r/LPT, r/BestOf, r/History, advocates the assassination the President. "The only way to fix this is going to be extra-Constitutional [Mussolini's assassination]. Trump deserves similar treatment."

/"Democrats will sweep the next election. Their communities will die out as we liberal big city people use our superior education and intellect to make robots that take over their crappy jobs, and the working class white culture that voted for racism will be forever gone."

/"Removing Trump from power is the only choice that leads to a future of your country, so you're gonna move your fat ass and take the fight to the streets, until that slob lies on the dirt, drowning in its own blood." [SH] r/ETS

All gun owners should have their guns taken away from them and then be executed

/r/Anarchism recommends bringing explosives to throw at "Free Speech" rally.

Leftist in /r/Videos promoting violence against free speech

Redditor on r/socialism telling users to torture reddit employees and their families.

Commies on /r/Anarchism is advocating for violence.... again. Over 100 upvotes folks.

/r/Anarchism blatantly advocates for murder... again...

/r/FULLCOMMUNISM advocates of both DPRK and Stalin

Castro praising

Support beating up Pepe

Supports punching of Richard Spencer

Supports mass murder of "Nazis"

Punch a Nazi and smash a Cop's face!

"This is why the nonviolent argument for revolution doesn't work. Politics is violence. Whether that violence is a punch to a nazis face or a brick to a cops head, or a series of corporations forcing an entire sector of people to not have enough resources to live it is still violence."

"I'm going to say something unpopular here. When I heard that someone had shot Republicans, my first immediate hope was that someone finally did something about McConnel." Score hidden

/r/anarchism praising the stabbing of a Trump supporter just for being white

(On Elon Musk taking 2 rich people to the moon) "If we're lucky, there will be a launch failure."

"Wish it was legal to kill Fascists"

Calling the victims of Communism Slaver Owners

Advocacy of shooting a Republican Senator

"shooter is a patriot"

"[on the shooting] you reap what you sow"

List compiling people defending the shooter:

Advocacy of killing opponents of Net Neutrality

Wanting Rural and Trump voters to die.

We're getting to the point that it's past the need for protest, but time for violent and extreme actions. The government needs to be reminded that is has a reason to be afraid of us.

"All cops deserve death" + Genocide denial

/r/anarchism links to a page of peoples doxx, reddit mods still won't delete the sub

Mods on /r/FULLCOMMUNISM celebrate the deaths of 5 cops, tell users to "BASH THE PIGS"

Literal 13k+ post calling for people's deaths.

The point worth taking here is that these statements were against Reddit's old anti-violence rules, but presumably because they were made by Leftists, were not removed, while Rightist comments were.

We can expect nothing but the same in the future from Reddit and Twitter: one-sided enforcement to advance their own ideological agenda, or that of those that they employ, who presumably are not the winners of the dot-com bubble, meaning that they are not the people not getting paid millions to innovate but getting paid entry-level salaries to clean up the mess.

If social media had any foresight, it would get out of this game before it debunks itself as biased.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

How Reddit Maintains Control Of The Hive Mind Through Censorship

Check out these cucks: instead of admitting that they are filtering out certain knowledge from the debate, they style dissenters as the opposition and argue that it is a public service to remove their voices. This is how Reddit maintains control of the hive mind. It creates a strong cultural bias on the site against certain taboo topics, and by doing so, enforces an echo chamber where the users see only the approved narrative wherever they look.

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, December 31, 2016

Reddit Summarized

Labels: , , ,

Monday, December 19, 2016

Why The World Is Leaving Reddit Behind

This is a daily event at Reddit: the dominant herd-mind dislikes any idea which is not mentally and morally convenient. It acts as a mob to downvote, report, and otherwise obscure or vandalize those ideas. Reddit is a circle-jerk of people in denial of reality, and they hate it when any realistic or actual data intervenes.

A recent /r/AskReddit thread identified this problem, which many users seem worried about:

As Reddit continues down the path of censorship and groupthink, the power users are going elsewhere, despite having fled to Reddit to get away from the insane bovine circular discussions at Facebook and Twitter.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, November 25, 2016

The Modern Cultural Myth of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Jonathan Theodore (2016)

The Modern Cultural Myth of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire explores the idea of the decline and fall of the Roman empire as a myth and archetype more than a discreet event, which makes the book more about us than the past:

This book investigates the ‘decline and fall’ of Rome as perceived and imagined in aspects of British and American culture and thought from the late nineteenth through the early twenty-first centuries. It explores the ways in which writers, filmmakers and the media have conceptualized this process and the parallels they have drawn, deliberately or unconsciously, to their contemporary world. Jonathan Theodore argues that the decline and fall of Rome is no straightforward historical fact, but a ‘myth’ in terms coined by Claude Lévi-Strauss, meaning not a ‘falsehood’ but a complex social and ideological construct. Instead, it represents the fears of European and American thinkers as they confront the perceived instability and pitfalls of the civilization to which they belonged. The material gathered in this book illustrates the value of this idea as a spatiotemporal concept, rather than a historical event – a narrative with its own unique moral purpose.

This is clarified more in a statement from the introduction:

In the literary and cinematic examples cited throughout this book, whether nineteenth-century or twenty-first, the story takes the same essential form. Rome fell because Rome first declined; she declined, because she was tainted from within; and the forces that corrupted her, with some local variation, are those that every society or civilization must hold in check if they are to be spared the consequences which befell the Roman example. Without the utter clarity of this narrative, the story of Rome has no mythological meaning; and no comparative value for the authors who seek a tale about the present as much as the past. It would be only a specialist historical concern; with perhaps some wider, but largely symbolic significance as the “end of an era.” ...The fall of Rome, the causes of its decline, and the universal relevance of the story, have occupied a unique place in the Western mind. As a society, we have shared a common obsession with this fall. It has been valued and exploited as an archetype for every perceived decline, from the political to the theological; and hence as a symbol for the multifarious fears held about society, culture and civilization as a whole. There is a constant representation of Rome in this regard as “a world not unlike our own,” engulfing the myth of Roman decline in a continuum with the current world of the author, and ancient history with perceptions of the present day. The decline and fall is a myth in which a mutually explored aspect of the contemporary world is a recreation of the Roman Empire, in some aspect or form, allowing the same moral force of judgement to apply.

Labels: , , , ,