yeah.

They just released gameplay and it looks very impressive.

I cannot wait

I know, I watched all 48 minutes of it haha

I can't get enough of the cyberpunk genre

Bladerunner is credited for birthing cyberpunk

It is definitely a pre-cursor.

Either Philip K. Dick or William Gibson.

Have you ever seen Ghost in the Shell (not the live action film) or Akira? And who are they?

I have seen Akira and I have some Ghost in the Shell episodes

Philip K. Dick wrote the story that Blade Runner is based off of and William Gibson made Neuromancer, which are often times argued as the pioneers of cyberpunk as literature and as art.

Ohhhh yeah that's right, "Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep". And I've never heard of Neuromancer; let me dive down this rabbit hole really quick

np

while you meet Alice in Wonderland, I'm going to return to slumber.

Its been awesome chatting with you.

gtg

Hasta luego

does anyone other than @ZODD use voice chat?

Am I not good enough for you anymore 🤡

@Silveru I'm going to try and do some roundtable discussions during the call in shows through discord so that might boost the participation in the voice chats as the server gets bigger

you're good enough @ZODD haha just curious how active the voice chat gets

@Seven Of Swords congratulations for the strawman fallacy, you just reiterated the communist mantra. the social cohesion of a society has nothing to to with capitalism and free market. stating that those who are incapable are stolen from and pushed to poverty, by the elite who's robbing them dry is plain false. you would cease the means of production from those capable just to reward those who are incapable. we've seen how that works out.

fuck this bot

alright, I'm gonna type it in again

@Seven Of Swords you've mistaken validation with economical success, like many others do. if everyone could and would be damn rich, I doubt they would feel validated and happy. moreover, nowadays you can get your needs easily covered even if you're a net drag on society. if you need proof, just look at the welfare system in western societies. it did more harm to black communities, than slavery and everything that's happened to them before. entitled single mothers and children raised without fathers everywhere. pbs.twimg.com/media/Cp74XmyUAAAtCaa.jpg

@igorbloodscene Pepole are waking up to the lie and tribleism will soom make a return, beause pepole don't belive in our socity.

Trible*

@igorbloodscene I don't see how a Marxian analysis of capitalism and its social and economic consequences are at all a strawman... could you perhaps expand and better explicate your argument into how and where the misrepresentation of a particular argument took place and where exactly I knocked it down just to make it look easy to refute? You also seem very concerned with why it would be the case that communists would say this by suggesting "you just reiterated the communist mantra", a if it is a pejorative. Can you please explain and come up with an argument for why it is that 1) things that communists say are pejorative and 2) why would it be that just because a communist says so that therefore it is false.

@igorbloodscene You also suggest that those who are not successful in the capitalist mode of production are incapable... perhaps this may be the case with some people, but is it that they are incapable or that they live in a society that has created spaces and specific classes that are to be made as poor thus that makes them incapable? For example, if we look at this within a Marxian analysis, there is class struggle between the bourgeoise and proletariat. In order for the proletariat to survive, they must sell their labor power to those who own the means of production, or the bourgeois. This sets up a society in which the two classes will have differing interests. The bourgeois, in order to obtain the most profits, will need to make sure that the expenditures that are spent on workers (benefits, wages, hours, etc.) all together will not exceed the expected profits that he will gain by owning the surplus that the workers have made.

@igorbloodscene In other words, in order for the bourgeois to secure their own interests, the proletariat must be exploited otherwise they would not be able to profit. Then you suggest that seizing the means of production is simply taking from the capable and giving to those that are not. Again, I've already posited the question of how it is that this supposed incapability originates. Simply throwing the "muh Venezuela" or "muh Soviet Union" memes are not a good enough attempt to say that workers seizing the means of production is bad... because guess what? As long as there are any problems within a society, it becomes questionable if any society is worth having, whether capitalist or communist. So that begs the question, why are you arguing that a capitalist society is more acceptable with all of its problems rather than a communist one? And of course the same question can be asked of people advocating for communism. And keep in mind, I've never admitted to being a communist per se, only that I find Marx's critiques of Capitalism as compelling.

@igorbloodscene Then you suggest: "you've mistaken validation with economical success, like many others do", well, under capitalism, economic success is the measure of success. Why do you think that so many reactionaries advocate for people to study what allows them to accumulate the most capital for a capitalist rather than what may truly interest them? Because success is crafted as a little box that is only accepted by how useful a person can be to gain money for someone else. That is a hallmark of capitalism. To quote Blade Runner 2049, "When your'e not performing your duties, do they keep you in a little box? Cells".

@igorbloodscene As for welfare, who is a societal leach, and so on, those are all discourses taking place within the framework of using the state as an authoritative and violent end to secure a political/economic interest. I think that the state is garbage, so no matter who argues for what policies should take place, they will not be what I would advocate for because the state itself is simply a problem that cannot solve the issues brought about the economic system that the state itself is dependent upon. We must consider radically new social institutions or get rid of them entirely to deal with our problems. If that means people abandon the state, then so be it. If that means that people abandon capitalism, then cool. If that means that the only way is to make sure that no one can breed any more because our own biology is the reason why we have social problems, then so be it.

All or nothing.

@igorbloodscene Perhaps this discussion is best had in voice chat. Walls of texts are annoying to write and very time consuming. I would very much like to read or listen to a response.

looking for mgtow

Looking for enlightment

"When you see the Buddha on the side of the road, kill him"

Who the hell said that?

Lol

Its just an aphorism lol

Stars in the Milky Way: ~100 Billion

Amount of debt that the US has : 21~23 Trillion Dollars

What the hell is going on here?

Why is the country in more debt than there are stars in the galaxy several times over?

Welfare and bad decisions

Really? You think its all welfare?

And bad decisions?

What if the economic and social system only creates spaces for people to make decisions that cannot solve the problems created by the system in the first place?

No matter how much health care, welfare or however many political policies are instituted by a state?

dude, really? do I have to read that wall of text? I have shit to get done. I'll get back to you... eventually, sometime.

I'm afk for a reason

Y'all posting essays xD

@igorbloodscene Noted. Which is why a discussion in voice chat would be better.

But if not, then I understand.

btw if you say communism and marxism isn't bad, prove me with one working example of a communist country in economical terms

(hint: venezuela is a fine proof of why communism doesn't work, if you need an example from the present)

What do you mean by "working" and what exactly is the standard for what economic terms legitimize which countries are or are not "working"?

Because in my opinion, no country or economy ever works because they are all littered with problems.

if you don't know what working means, look it up in a thesaurus/dictionary

What happens when I question the dictionary?

but 'working' means that you have economic mobility

Or perhaps a communist society could actually meet the definition of working under the dictionary?

that's something you don't have in a communist economy. that, you have in your country of origin, if it's not communist.

Care to explain deeper?

I'm not sure that I sufficiently understand your point...

Google definition of working: functioning or able to function.

Many communists would argue that communism can meet the definition.

okay, then your next job is to google 'economic mobility'

@Andrew The Meme King Memes are garbage tbh

Overplayed and trite.

@Seven Of Swords that hurts man

@igorbloodscene Under what system gets to determine or value if "economic mobility" is a factor of economic success if perhaps we could have other ways to structure society that may not value that specific aspect?

wot? economy as a definition, is not a result of capitalism. the market, and that people want to trade things, is a part of the human nature. I have knives, you have tables. you need knives, I need tables, we trade.

@igorbloodscene If you tell me to just use Google, I'm going to just use the communist arguments against what you vaule as counter examples against what you want me to look up in the first place lmao. Perhaps you need to put in more work than simply asking people to Google things... Not a very fruitful discussion.

you would want the government to regulate that? that is what communism does.

But under a market of exchanges, people do not barter. In your example, that is barter, not a market.

I tell you to google things because you want to define things. I'm not here to define things, there are commonly accepted ways to do that, one of which is 'google that shit'

Did you read my response? I'm not in favor of any government doing anything lol

a market is where you trade things, money (or anything that resembles a commonly accepted value) is just a means for that

on top of all these phenomenons a working society is built. I'm all for free market, that is not government regulated. if you bring up communism, I'll have to tell you that communism is a government-enforced distribution of the ceased means of production

so if you bring up communist arguments, I'll assume that you are in favor of a government or any other seemingly 'higher force' telling me what value my work has

secondly, this higher entity would want to decide to distribute the fruit of my hard earned labor AT GUNPOINT

taxation is a fine example of that btw

Ok... are you an ancap?

I'm a minarchist

just like that TFM guy

Ok... so there would still be a state in your idea of how you would want society to run then?

You say that you think that taxation is theft. Which means that you hate taxation, and if you suggest that there should still be a state, yet no taxation, your idea won't even get off the ground, or you contradict yourself.

```
Minarchists advocate for a "night-watchman state" that is not responsible for the education, health care, employment or transportation of its citizens, neither makes it any use of natural resources in its territory. All of this is instead held privately or publicly, but is never susceptible to any interference of the state, its law or its representatives. Minarchy is, of course, different from anarchy, since the latter term means a complete absence of a government with all services, including even law and security, done or exercised by people themselves.
```

How is that even a state?

That just sounds like anarcho-capitalism lol

And yes, I read the wikipedia definition already and it was pitiful.

And back to the previous points that I've made, just because I mention Marxian analysis of capital, it doesn't follow that I am a communist. There are many anarchists that find Marx's arguments compelling without succumbing to thinking that a state is the best way to deal with these issues.

so you're an ancap?

No... I hate capitalism lol

I'm not an an-comm either lol

I don't like the state either lol

as far as I could read your wall of text (I've given up at a certain point), I read that you would want to have another 'non-governmental' entity to regulate
in which case I'll have to tell you that governments started out as 'non-governmental' regulatory entities

Keep reading

so you came up with the same defintion of what we have today, only without the term 'government'

no thanks, like I said I have shit to get done. give a quick rundown and I'll respond accordingly

Keep reading my response and let me know where exactly it is that you thought that I said that.

Do what thou will.

you bet

How can someone suggest that the state holding people at gunpoint in some circumstances is bad, yet in others is justified?

Are we picking and choosing arbitrarily which monopolies of violence that the state has are good and which are not?

>the state holding people at gunpoint is bad

>we should have a state for the sake of providing a military or police force which will hold people at gunpoint

People still need to make up their minds.

If we are simply just going to accept some evils as necessary, why try to change anything if any social system can be argued as having its own problems as being necessary in the first place?

It just makes no sense...

I would really value if this fucking bot would not delete my comments

The bot is annoying lmao

@Andrew The Meme King Fix the bot pls

alright so I'll post my answer to your wall of text ON FUCKING PASTEBIN, because of THE FUCKING BOTS

gotcha

@Seven Of Swords it's an ongoing issue I'm trying to fix it

@Andrew The Meme King Gotcha

pastebin.com/XwbGddXx

right there

> Are we picking and choosing arbitrarily which monopolies of violence that the state has are good and which are not?
not arbitrarily. there are necessities which you can't avoid. having a functional army is one of them. try to defend your government-less country from invading forces without a working army

and yes, for those, I'm willing to chip in some part of my income (actually I'm willing to do more, but that's another discussion)

It wouldn't even be a country because countries need borders enforced by those that have obtained a monopoly of violence (e.g. a state or a corporation).

After reading our responses and having a more thorough back and forth, its clear that we do not live on the same planet, but that's ok.

what do you think a country is?

Great question.

In my opinion, a country is just an abstraction concocted by people for the sake of an imagined identity/community.

do you live in the US?

Why does it matter?

because everyone in the US speaks english, and more or less has the same cultural background

Haha no

this is not the same for europe/africa/asia/whatever

Like I said, we don't live on the same planet. I think that the US has many different cultural backgrounds and languages.

oh, so the US is not a country where you can get around with using english?

that's new information to me

What do you mean by "where you can get around with using english"?

really?

Do you want to answer or not?

try to get around in rural areas in europe, with only using english, you'll see what I'm talking about

Like there aren't areas like that in the US lol

There are areas in which English is not spoken as much as other areas of the country.

so getting back to my original point, before we're dwelling too much into defining terms for no other reason than mudding up the discussion: a country is a unity of cultural values and language, which formed throughout the times. and countries have borders, because people have tribal instincts.

Yeah... to me all of those things are what adds to a peoples' identity of an imagined community, not necessarily what is widely used or available.

Just because people are tribal, it does not follow that all aspects of tribalism will lead to the propping up of borders or even a commonly used language.

you can be a world citizen for all I care, I just suggest you don't force it on anybody else, because they might violently disagree.

You say that as if the state or those in favor of capital won't violently disagree...

Which sounds like hypocrisy...

with what?

dude, noone holds you back from moving to another country and live the dream

nice meme lol

you hating the current system is one, yes

that's the problem with MGTOW, it makes men lie to themselves and not see the issues that plague their lives.

Dude, you clearly hate the current system as well, just in a different way than I do lol

if you agree with forcibly distributing the fruits of labor, choose mexico, cuba, or venezuela, they are good at it

I hated the system when I was younger, but then I learned to use it.

you are also free to adapt, blaming anyone else for your misery is hyperbolic

We clearly do not live on the same planet. I never said that I was in favor of distributing anything.

>implying that capitalism is the system of innovation

lol

read less marx, dude

I mean, if this is your only argument, I'm not here to change your mind, feel free to kill some 'filthy rich people' and spend your remaining life in jail

Read less Keynes or Nozick, my guy

Ok... if the best meme that you can come up with is making it seem like I'm I've typed things that I've never typed, then we are clearly done.

did you read your questions? all your questions indicate you are leaning to the hard left, yet you seem to be in denial of it

A person can be hard left and not be in favor of everything that the mainstream hard left advocates for lol

For example, I take gynocentrism to be a problem, but no one on the left would dare even consider it.

never said you are on par with the mainstream, but the ideology is clearly there, and that ideology has crushed countries throughout history. and your argument seems to me just like the standard communist argument: "but that wasn't REAL communism"

i'm not a communist...

I've said that so many times its infuriating.

yep, like I said, in denial

Oh, so you know what is in my head better than I do?

And besides, countries have been toppled over and destroyed for the sake of capital as well. Sorry, everyone's shit stinks, not just communism's.

if you read back what we've been talking about on here, it's clearly visible you are advocating for something that is similar to it, but you don't want to use the name.

evidence needed

Really? If its so clear, please explain where I *clearly* advocated for it.

you hate the current system, and you are posing the same questions leftists do, and coming to conclusions leftists do. problem is, your premises are wrong. I clarified a lot of it, if it didn't help, not my fault

gynocentrism is off the table now, we are talking about economy.

>implying that his arguments are flawless

lol

*missing argument error*

>I'm missing an argument

>clearly hasn't been paying attention to the discussion

Whatever dude. Do what thou wilt. Its clear that we never lived on the same planet and that we never will. It was an interesting, discussion none the least.

look, I've debated enough to know when it comes to these childish non-arguments, you clearly have nothing else to say, and this is the point when I quit. I really have other things to do, but I can't say I haven't tried. not everyone will get it, it is what it is

(just make sure you don't become part of antifa)

If we are going to be recommending things that we should or should not do, I would recommend listening to some Zizek.

btw I'm fine with having disagreements, but I'm not fine with having these childish name callings. you should have the right to say whatever you will, and I'm willing to defend it. but you also have to be able to take criticism and accept that you might be wrong

You called me a communist first...

I never said that I was.

Don't cast stones in glass houses, as the saying goes.

then you have communist views all but in name :)

meh

there are many different schools of communist thought on the left.

it doesn't matter what you call it, you can call it the great religion of the beaten dogs, for all I care. the name is not what counts, it's the idea behind it, that wrecked societies throughout time

Not all of them necessarily agree on what communism is, much less who is and who isn't.

OK... is it one idea, or many different ideas?

the generic idea what you've been talking about is, the forced redistribution of wealth

I've never said that I was in favor of the forced redistribution of wealth.

If anything I'm much more radical and crazy.

I want people to be able to live without needing wealth at all.

That is much more freeing than needing a state or dictatorship of the proletariat to redistribute anything.

aha, and who would be producing your at least minimal needs for survival then?

in what sense, exactly?

food, shelter, water?

People would do it themselves without the need of capital, money, or the state.

but why would they?

wait, you mean you as an individual, would do it for yourself?

Because people don't want to be naked, cold or dehydrated lol

People would do it collectively.

Parents would still care for their children, and entirely new social organization would sprout up.

Like I said, its radical.

Imagine it more like this: People leave the society that is failing, and they go to make another one. They care for each other not for profit, but because they don't want to suffer.

They would farm, build shelter, and have water.

Using the knowledge that they have already previously learned from the society that they left.

Or perhaps, people in massive drives, by the billions, simply lose faith in the crumbling institutions and bring forth better ones.

you realize that's like going back to the neanderthal level of society, do you?

How so?

There is no reason to suggest that just because people decide to quit their 9-5s by the billions that they would somehow forget how to build or create new inventions lol

because traits that are needed nowadays to provide for the amount of people that live on the face of the earth, require technology, and a sophisticated one at it. what you imagine is that every people would be able to learn these traits, and exercise them for their survival. while this might be true for clarifying water and hunting, it might not be true for chemical engineering and industrial farming (much less mechanical engineering), that the industrial revolution brought

also, you would impose value on people that have rare traits others don't to trade their traits for the value they don't want to. they will simply go to other 'communities', and sell their traits there for the value they see fit

The computer programmer would take the computer that he already bought in the previous system, and create new data structures to use that don't rely upon IP rights or having to program as the sole driver of their ability to sell their labor.

No one would be imposing anything on anyone lol

People that are frustrated with the way things are in this society would "leave". These "Leavers" would come from all aspects of life. Computer Programmer, engineers, farmers etc.

You can find many people from those groups which could come together and produce a new means of social relations.

The people that would make up these communities would be disgusted by the idea of needing to sell anyone's labor power for survival.

okay, so let me pose an example: I as a mechanical engineer, would have to provide your community, because your community says so. another community would not need me to provide that amount of work for them, to get more food/shelter/whatever. I go there, you will only get mechanical engineers on a lower level to provide for your community, ending up on a lower quality of engines and stability on the long run. and the you would say I guess, that's not fair

1) Its not simply because the community says so, it would be because he would want to.

If he didn't want to then he could go somewhere else where he would want a profit for selling his labor power.

oh, then let me pose a more radical example:
Scenario 1: vicious people come to your community and slaughter the men/rape the women. since you hate the idea of violence
Scenario 2: certain people of your community will say, they will fight for your community, for being treated better and having to work less for their survival

Meh. Every community has that problem. In my opinion, if that is your criterion for as to why my theory won't work, then you should be consistent and apply it to capitalism as well. People get raped all of the time in capitalism, hell police officers do that to people and can get away with it in some instances lol. If your problem is "oh, but your little shitty hippie society won't have guns and will be raped by people that do" well guess what? If it is the case that we shouldn't have some societies over other because of that problem, yet no society has ever not had rapists, then we should just get rid of society entirely via a human extinction plague akin to the Krogan genophage from Mass Effect.

High Roller. Either we make the best damn society free of problems, or we shouldn't have one at all. Simple.

And keep in mind, brutal violence doesn't have to be the only problem, it could be any problem really.

wow man, you failed to provide any arguments again. we're not talking about the current society now, you deflected my points totally. we were on the theoretical level, where I was trying to get the argument on why that happy-go-lucky society of your would be able to survive without people wanting to trade

I find that the distinction between theory and praxis is blurred.

I never said this society in which we're living in is perfect, all I'm saying is, economically the free market is the least shitty solution. times may come where it can/will be improved, but right now it's what we have to go with.

In my example, its not a strict abstraction. It would still have to deal with the transition from capitalism to a post-capitalist system all the while the people are still in transition.

also, minarchism is the way to go, nudge-nudge

No lol

People can do much better than a shitty free market lol

wow, and now you're talking about transitioning. you still didn't answer the primary question: why would people not want to trade in your imagined society?

Trade what, exactly?

And like I've said before, barter is not market exchange.

skills for things, like we do now in the current system

do you know why money came to existence?

Because the people that decided to build the society hate a market exchange system lol

(or do I have to fill in some gaps there too, hope not)

Because states wanted money as a representation of gold in order to pay soldiers to rape and pillage lol

again, the 'market exchange' is just the phenomenon of people wanting to trade, because they have something they want to sell, and the want something they don't

you can call whatever you want it, but trade happens on the market

In my example, people wouldn't want to sell... they would have an entire new social relation, something like a gift economy perhaps?