por que no los dos?

who got upset cuz Trump wants to deport her toilet-cleaner

I, for one, welcome our new Mexican plumber airline pilot hombres

Kelly Osborne was it?

yes

god i'm terrible with remembering names for certain 😛

merit based with a quota, good

i always second guess myself

open borders bad

and that's what this comes down to

like how i sometimes think Tim Pool is called Tim Pond

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0TFayRZeS8

sorry, no borders, not open borders

I even love how taht other woman goes "Oh thats... No...."

she totally knew that was such a bad things to say 😄

yup

but all in all thats why they prioritise higher-value people for immigration, cuz its a safe bet

and it then gives the lower-skilled people less chances to fight over, and that means less people from Less-developed nations

Elimination of borders serves two different ideologies, neither of which I agree with. Corporatists would be for the elimination of borders for the sake of easier trade and access to cheaper workforce. The whole reason Socialists are for eliminating borders is redistribution of wealth. The United States is wealthy, and one cannot simply sit on their wealth, it has to be shared. Redistributed. Anyone who wants the wealth of the United States should be able to take it. At least, that's what I get from it.

take it, no.. .earn it, hell yes

I disagree on that, too.

I mean

I'm not opposed to immigration

you disagree with being able to earn a piece of the pie?

but I don't think the US needs to go about headhunting

I think we need more pies.

there are always more pies

its not a zero sum game

just because someone becomes successful doesnt mean someone else has to become unsuccessful

It's a zero sum game packed within a non-zero sum game

The US Economy is, largely, zero sum.

The World Economy is... mostly not?

existing economys that rely on renewible resources extraction rates are zerosum, if you find a new source of resources and have the ability to harvest it on your own dollor for a profit thats when its more than zero sum

Sure, but I can't remember a time when it's been zero sum in the modern age

Well, what I'm getting at is, if we've got no borders, if we just let anyone in - a deal that will likely only be one way

there's always been a new scientifc discovery

but you have to have a truly bombing potental for that or a dying population for immigration to be helpful to that

or a new business, etc

america is actually becoming more zero sum as time goes on

It essentially lets other nations raid our resources and send them home.

no borders means you aren't a country

Basically, yes.

But it's what's being legitimately argued for

I know

because more things are being owned, less things are being found in america

and I think it's wrong

I think anyone here thinks it's wrong.

when more is owned and less is found you find a plataeu in your economy

yeah but the debate isn't people here

the debate is, how can anyone think, in their right mind, that it's a sane idea

As I outlined, it's redistribution of wealth.

Basically, I propose that the socialists who are pushing for an elimination of borders view the United States as a whole as the bourgeoisie class

well 34K/year is the 1% worldwide

Exactly.

And equality can't be achieved while a 1% group exists unchecked.

It's absolutely mental, but these ARE commies we're talking about...

i don't think socialist really realize how poor the world is.

I think that's fair, as well.

if they did, they would realize that not even all the wealth of the US could raise the world even .1% higher on the economic ladder

it would mean that those same socialist would need to become mountains poorer than the poorest person in the US, as dictated by their ideology.

along with everyone else

It's as if they imagine a nation as an inflatable pool, and the economy as the water in that pool. If they remove the 'borders' of the pool, the water should fill up the space around it, right?

no borders + socialism = everyone made worse off, or no change.

Except it all gets lost in the grass.

the problem with socialism is that it is designed to block economic progress.

because being well off is viewed as a problem

unless everyone is as well off as you

unchecked captalistic hierarchies are a bad thing

unchecked socialism is a bad thing

the answer is somewhere in the middle

Circular hierarchies are best hierarchies.

Granade problem with socialism is that ita against human nature

It would only work in truly altruistic society

I think it works just fine in a extremely small populations too.

Basically anything under say 200 people.

Depends

It can

Yeah it can still go horribly wrong too.

It also works in certain internet communities

I'm just saying the only way it can work is small communities.

For example early subtitle maker community was pretty socialist

Hacker spaces are pretty socialist too.

Its because those ppl have another then material motivation that it works

other than material motivation?

I dont think lack of monetary motivation makes something socialist. Value judgements extend beyond fiat currency

The subtitle community had a government that took control of the means of production?

even if we use Marx's endpoint as our metric for socialism

which is to say, even if we're attempting to be the most charitable, and setting the goalpost closest to the situation being described

I was referencing the mentality of from each according to their ability to each according to their need. In hacker spaces it's a social contract that you help those who don't know.

And that the help be freely exchanged.

That's just called being a nice person and working together

You're being pedantic again.

Socialism and communism are whole political, economic, and philosophical ideologies

That is not pedantry

They do not have a monopoly on community

These systems are very clearly defined

Yes they are, and parts of them can be adapt, and don't have to be taken in their entirety.

And most of those parts existed before the systems were created

No one said they did, no one said that Marx was the first one to think up this shit either.

It just doesn't make sense though.

It's like saying that it's feudal to want to have land that others work on

Systems of government don't come into existence out of nothing.

No it's not.

What's the difference?

Drug cartels are Feudal.

Sorry I give up

They own property and you're allowed to work and live on that property, the cartel is responsible for your transport and safety. That's a feudal system.

The govt owns property as well and give out leases to people to work on it and is responsible for policing and transportation. Does that make it feaudalism as well?

Or is it just some socialist/capitalist policies in moderation?

What i meant subtitle ppl didnt care for any rights and were closely linked with warez

They were willing to spend hours on translating without any reward

Oh this about people who make cracks or fan translations of games?

I'm a bit behind, watching Tim's 4th of July followup video Is "Healthcare is a Human Right?", and I don't care to deal with Facebook just to mention it, so here's the thing that bugs me about the whole thing- people keep saying "just semantics" as if semantics is a form of splitting hairs, but semantics and definitions are how we know two people are saying the same thing when they utter the same words- if "human right" just means some people in some societies can reasonably expect to receive a benefit, then that blows the hell out of international human rights laws protecting people from various government abuses.

The same as "racism" and "misogynist" are/used to be meaningful to throw around precisely because they were relatively extreme, the term "human right" means something you are entitled to purely on the basis of being human. Not a human in a society that can afford it, not a human with certain prerequisites, just a human. Which is why pretty much all of the human rights are freedom *from* rather than freedom *to*.

I think what the more reasonable people Tim is speaking to are referring to is actually a societal amenity and free access to it, with a side of considering a functional healthcare system a public work somewhat analogous to a good transportation system or wastewater treatment system. Which is a *very* different thing, in both cases, from a human right.

In a related but not precisely the same point- a lot of the issues people have with the US health care system are related to how health insurance works, and Tim's comment about how his insurance is $300 a month and covers basically nothing is an example. As is the various ire about exclusions of pre-existing conditions and the like. Which I find somewhat odd, because basically, this is people getting angry because insurance companies are acting the way insurance companies have acted in every other field for as long as there have been insurance companies.

Insurance is basically a very respectable form of gambling, and you actually want to lose. You pay your premiums in the hope that you will never need the big payout of a claim, because there are other negative effects of the events that merit a claim. You don't want a tornado to wreck your house, you don't want to wrap your car around a tree because you dodged a deer, and so on. Insurance companies are the House. They set the premiums based on the odds of payouts so that they make money while still being able to pay out claims. (How much money and how honorable they are is outside the point of this argument.)

With health care, though, we have put the burden for our routine healthcare on these same casino-like entities. We want them to cover events that have a more than 100% payout rate- services that everyone should be getting on a regular basis, like annual checkups. And originally, this made sense from their point of view, because it reduced payouts. But now they are expected to be the clearinghouse for all healthcare services for those they cover, and people are angry because they are sucking out loud at doing so in a compassionate and cost-efficient manner.

This confuses me. I am not sure how we ended up here, instead of with health co-ops (think entities that are to health insurance as credit unions are to banks) or widespread health care savings accounts and insurance relegated to the "prepare for the worst, hope for the best" type of events that insurance is at least somewhat suited to handling.

You, @Firefairy , I believe you're absolutely on the money with that assessment.

I've had people try to debate with me that 'Health insurance' is different.

Furthermore, the push towards health insurance, I believe actually does more harm than good on the price and quality of care as well.

Any given market is set up in such a way that the prices are set according to what a customer can/will pay.

The medical industry as a whole might not particularly care about you, or your sickness. They will care about your money, though. And if given the option to be paid or not be paid, they will opt to be paid. Therefore, prices would be set according to what they can get.

The market is set up with the drug manufacturers on one end. They ship their drugs to pharmacies, including hospital pharmacists. They market their drugs through doctors. They advertise to make sure potential customers are aware of the treatment.

The hospitals are set up as businesses. They charge a markup on the treatments, etc. They've got a building, infrastructure, etc. to cover.

And there's the customer. The patient. The patient will pay what they need to to be treated.

There's an additional problem that comes up when you add in the insurance policy. No longer is the patient the customer. The insurance company is the one that pays for the treatment for you. Instead of trusting your health care directly to the doctor or hosptial, you now trust the Insurance company to work in your best interest. The insurance company also has bigger wallets. Meaning the pharmaceutical companies can charge more for treatment, meaning the hospital needs to charge more for treatment. Meaning the Insurance company has to charge more for health insurance, meaning the wallets get bigger. It's a feedback loop. And so many doctors refuse to accept Medicare patients, because the Medicare service that we pay in to frequently doesn't actually pay out.

The ACAe didn't address any of the issues. More competition among drugmakers would do more to make healthcare affordable than adding a middleman between the customer's wallet and the hospital's accounts payable. And you're right, the legislation also removed any aspect of hedging risk from the health insurance industry. it's an absolute joke.

On the note of health care being a human right, though, I disagree. The term 'Human Right' does not entail something you are entitled to.

You are entitled to your own self-preservation. That does not mean protection must be provided for you, that means nobody can ethically stop you from trying to protect your own life.

As per the 'inalienable' rights to Life, Liberty, and Property, Life expresses that you are entitled to defend yourself from anyone who would deprive you of your right to live. It also implies that you are entitled to seek to be cured of any affliction that threatens your life as well. THAT is how healthcare would be a Human Right. Despite the right to life, and even the right to bear arms, the Government is not obligated to teach you Jiu Jitsu, give you a switchblade, or buy you a gun. It says that you have the right to seek it. The government is not obligated to give you a stage, microphone, megaphone, printing press, church building, etc. to comply with the First Amendment. As such, conceding Health care as a human right does not mean that the government is expected to supply it.

Thats not my eperience of it

Any time they privatize part of healthcare ot always got worse

With private owners only opening wards which are profitable

In state owned hospital you would get parts which make money subsidizing parts which dont

In private you get parts which dont make money thtashed out

And then ppl here in Britain have to travel over an hour to nearest delivery ward

Ofc there is lots of problems with state operating healthservices as well. But free market does not always bring the best solutions

@Ryecast Thank you for the thoughtful response.

I think we are running into a difference between a constitutional right as declared in the US and a Human Right. There are quite a few rights guaranteed by the constitution that aren't basic human rights. The right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness are, when codified into law, delineated as no one having the right to kill you, imprison you without just cause, or interfere with your efforts to improve your situation, again, without just cause. Any right to health care actually falls under Pursuit of Happiness, which has always been the biggest area of tension, as it is the area in which people and societies are most likely to disagree and interfere with one another.

I am absolutely no fan of the way pharmaceutical companies work. However, there is more to look at than a particular country when deciding how shady they are. There are numerous countries that have decided that, rather than have a strong drug approval department, they will just use US or EU approval as their own. This makes it even more important to the drug company's bottom line to make sure they pass those trials, so they spend more money on each successful drug, which must then make enough money to support its own R&D and marketing, as well as however many unsuccessful drugs were worked on at a similar time, and *then* make enough money to keep the stock market happy, all before the patent runs out and they lose business to the generics. It's a system with a lot of perverse incentives, in addition to the basic profit motive. Then you get hospitals and care groups, individual doctor's offices, the low-paying government plans, and it is a serious mess.

"Best" part is, we have to fix it without shutting it off, because it is currently keeping a lot of people alive as it limps along. No shutting it down to do an overhaul, and oh yeah, lots of politics about who gets what at what price.

Such a joy.

@zutt 2 things, 1 is that nobody does anything for no reward whatsoever, it's merely that rewards are not always material. Charity work, for instance, offers benefits towards one's reputation, can pad out a resume, and can settle someone's conscience. They also benefit from helping to fix the problems in their community, provided those problems are alleviated or solved. FOSS software is another similar case, where people will use it as an educational tool, use it to break into other social circles etc. 2. Communism isn't "does shit for free", it is the recategorization of people as assets. Your work and the fruits of it do not belong to you, they belong to a collective. Your participation is compulsory. The only way by which one could conceivably keep such a system going is through harsh punitive measures

Also re: medical coverage, I find it baffling that A: barely anyone has done an in depth study or set of studies as to the actual efficacy/response time of the Canadian medical system and B: that Americans would promote switching to a system where hospitals are at or over capacity and the government has proven useless in their efforts to fix the very issues that will tank medical coverage here. At the very least, if (and when) the ACA was tried in any form (including the original one pitched by the administration) and failed catastrophically, there is a "back up plan" already in place

Well as far as the national healthcare goes everyone here just shrugs his shoulders when they hear about usa

As for the internet thing you are right that my description is bad nontheless there are communities where ppl spend huge amount of time on projects with no reward. Socialism lacks this kind of motivation for ppl was the point i tried to make ineffectively.

@@Firefairy Pursuit of happiness was declaration of independence, not the constitution. Your insight on how the US gets used to test the world standard at it's own expense is spot on.

The point I was arguing was that human rights emphasize the human duty to go and take, not the governments duty to give. There are no human rights to which we are unanimously entitled from the government, as that defies other's rights to life liberty and property.

Its well documented that lack of motivation led to low productivity durring the socialist era in my country

It was the oposite ppl who worked hard got usualy punished by their colective

well, those projects with no reward are usually for the fun,
the reward is enjoying the production in their free time


That said, i doubt many people enjoy for example driving around in a trash-collector, rummaging through the stink and filth containers to throw them into the truck, hence there is no reward other than money

"I love breaking rocks all day so I can eat shitty food" - no one ever

thats the issue with socialism, that it only works if everyone does what they enjoy,
But society needs people to do the trashy things, and they wont volunteer

Well i would disagree on breaking rocks

Reeancting stone age methods is actualy lot of fun

Idk about the shity food tho

🤣

As for those projects

thats the thing though, reenacting means you can quit anytime

Idk do ppl enjoy making subtitles ?

they might sure

feels like a thing of "i helped 😃 "

its the case of, they aren't obligated, so if they get tired of it they can quit anytime they want

if everyone does that at every crappy job, society practically stops

and you can make the point "there will be people who enjoy menial tasks" and stuff, and sure there will be, but not at the amount we have them now

its that case of "why would i wanna scrape someone elses poop off the public toilet, when that same pooper is writing a 3rd rate poetry slam

I mean if they didn't get some sort of value out of fan translations why would they do them?

Ppl draw motivation from different things

Some ppl just wanted to share i think

Some did it for fame when they added their name as translator

Maybe ?

well that fame is their intended reward

but i joined mid-discussion so i don't know the overarching topic 😄

i'll leave you to it

Subbed anime is a human right.

Dubbed anime is a war crime as outlined in the Geneva convention

what is the difference between manga and subbed anime? With manga you get to appreciate the art after you finish reading the text.

Manga wastes your time less

I've almost entirely converted over. There's just a few series that are either TV only or that I'm already most of the way through in animu form

Granted the only new series I watch is puppets, not drawings, but still

Depends tbh

Some manga is better than anime and vice versa

name 1!

Cant say that there are many series ive read and watched

Name 1 what ?

Anime better then manga or manga better then anime ?

<:GWcfcThonk:357907199928041473>

I think he means the later

one of them 😛

I cant debate it cuz i never watched either

Often anime only adapt part of mangas

Or ln or vn for that matter

lets not go down those rabbit holes, stay with anime vs managa

For example just this ended season i would say hinamatsuri manga was better then anime adaptation

Anime was very good tho

Koe no katachi (silent voice) manga is better the animation

this is just like that "this wasnt in the books" fanboy attitude

I would say anime is better for the visuals

because manga can sometimes be very messy in just b/w

Dubbed anime is superior for the following reasons:

1) no habla japanese
2) I don't have enough time in the day to sit down and *just* watch anime
3) ~~English is the best language~~

The VA is almost invariably shit though

But if it's time you're after manga is the solution

You know, the japs also feel the same about dubbed american cartoons.

Like King of the Hill is a big discussion there, most japs prefer the english version

Wait really?

It's global?

i tell you what

Original language is best confirmed

All of my arguments apply to king of the hill

Nah, just thought its funny to point that out, since its always either an english vs japanese thing. So its funny hearing the tables turned on that situation

I like how it's over King of the Hill too

bc of shinjiro, i mean junichiro

Yeah, it was wierd to be honest hearing bout that.

Parently its true

only time socialism / communism can work is if Borgs implement it
discuss

so a friend of mine is debating a retard, ill let you decide which is which through your own interpritation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE-0OIACQyY

purely entertainment value only

I'm going to instantly assume the person streaming is the retard purely based on trying to use raphael's school of athens to appear intellectual

>Pascal

aaah

the one vaping is the retard. by default.

😛

Lel

yes yes debate over the debate, what level of debatception can we reach

i'll debate you over this claim that this is a debate over the debate!

deb8 me!

gr8 deb8 m8

m8 i cant w8 for the brext deb8

btw my m8 was in that deb8

ur deb8ing skills are deb8able!

!slowmode 10

**<#463068752725016579>** is now in *s l o w m o t i o n*. Regular users can only post once every 10 seconds or so.

(Suggestion, type `!slowmode off` when you want things to be normal again)

oppressor

DOWN WITH THE PATRIARCHY

DIE CIS SCUM

oh wait im cis

it's ok as long as you aren't white and male you're still safe

then im fucked

well then it's off to the gulag with you

youll never take me!!!

If the commies win I'll just get my ~~nuremberg~~ progressive stack papers

idk what id do tbh

obviously id be opposed

```surely changing the debate channel to slow mode will make it be filled with serious discussion```
*ten seconds later*

did we really expect anything less

i'm sorry i ruin everything everywhere i go :c

Senny, it doesn't look like you can use that. <:SMILESWEAT6:403540174069432320>

!slowmode off

Also according to the wehraboos I'm close enough to white to marry white wahmen, which means that in reverse Nuremberg I'm probably not allowed to reproduce

apparently my best friend is white enough to have white privalege, he was told so by a 1/4 black woman

the entertaining bit is that he's 0% white. full-blooded arab.

lol just goes to show how ignorant some people are

and enforces my point that race/skin color doesnt fucking matter

Like how Jontron is apparently white despite being Persian

quantum minorities. PoC until observed to disagree with you