---
This never stops = he's actually not being as radical as it might at first appear - but due to previous comments from him, everything is understandably interpreted the worst way possible.

https://youtu.be/MWVZXjTXn5o

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7742249/EXPOSED-Prince-Andrews-deals-tax-haven-tycoons.html
brits reaching levels of cucked previously not thought to be physically possible

Oh don't you worry, we're capable of astronomical levels of cuckoldry
🥵

and then we told them, "We need to let in 30 million arabs by 2030 to keep the economy growing!"

that's such a long article wtf lol

jeez, worth a watch https://youtu.be/IU10xAUaKgg

and the police are wondering why no one have trust in them

turns out the latest terrorist was on BBC complaining that it was not nice to call him a terrorist

No it's not nice. That's why I do it

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50618744

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7741967/London-Bridge-terrorist-personal-friend-hate-preacher-Anjem-Choudary.html

https://twitter.com/JamesCleverly/status/1201085216699359232

Marr dont want answers, he wants to berate what ever person he have targeted

He wants a gotcha

Wants that social credit from his Commie mates

the likes from twitter checkmarks

Rising through that ideology that isn't supposed to have a hierarchy

Holy shit, I'm watching the Vaush vs. Sargon debate, and I'm stunned at Vaush's complete misunderstanding of that an *argumentum ab auctoritate* is. 🤦‍♂️

"The appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the person's authority is not relevant," WTF is this shit?

So a physicist with a PhD in physics comes and says gravity doesn't exist (for whatever reason), and suddenly it must be accepted as correct because he's a bona-fide physicist with a PhD certificate? 😂

Uh....no.

Complete bollocks.

Oh, and then he just *ad hominems* Sargon, too.

data have shown us that most people that believe fake news have a university degree <:makes_you_think:382980749780844554>

<:kek:590371888480387073>

yes just because someone is an expert

doesn't mean they aren't a socialist <:makes_you_think:382980749780844554>

lol

They're both getting really hung up over this concept as to why a country should be democratic, and business not.

The simple answer is the because the aims and objectives of a nation state are not the same as those of a privately-owned company.

And so a different power structure is appropriate to accomplishing the goal for each, efficiently.

Of course, you can argue what those aims and objectives should be, but if we presuppose that the aim of a country is, "To provide a fair and free place for its citizenry to live," and the aim of a business is to "Generate return on investment for its shareholders," this is easy to explain.

a business is like the military, you have a hierarchy to keep order or before you know it the janitor get ideas that he knows best and fucks everything up. they have tried democratic run companies and they all have failed as they get parlayed by power struggles between different groups

Vaush's position here seems to be that the primary aim of a business should be to provide happiness to its workers, and therefore democracy is an appropriate methodology by which to deliver this.

This is complete bollocks, of course, because if you did that, all the lowest-end, most common workers would vote more money to themselves, the investors would lose all their money and stop investing, and nobody would produce anything. You'd just end up with Soviet-style empty supermarket shelves. This is why communism never works.

it a reason why all the companies that have tired that on a grand scale have gone out of business. zero productivity

Personal opinion point: I dislike how Vaush tries to pigeonhole Sargon's answers by not allowing him to expand on his points, demanding yes/no answers. That's a bad-faith strategy for making your opponent look bad.

Regarding worker-owned co-ops, it's entirely possible that they haven't become more prevalent because of social change and business methodology changing so slowly. However, the data Vaush cited came from a questionable, biased source, so there's not really anything of substance here without a closer look at the data and further testing.

Vaush is wrong when he accuses Sargon of perpetuating a conspiracy theory, though. When Sargon says "the evil capitalists are keeping them (the worker co-opers) down", he's obviously referring to ultra-rich large corporation owners acting in self-interest to maintain their business model. Vaush trying to acribe this intent as "conspiracy" to Sargon is stupid.

A group of people can act apparently in concert as a result of what might be considered the incentive equivalent of convergent evolution without resorting to a need for conspiracy. Vaush is taking the backest interpretation of Sargon's comments imaginable, here.