• Naked Ape | Bernie Sanders is a F$cking Moron
    159 replies, posted
there's this weird thing where tudd is the only person on this forum that people address by username aside from mods and tudd, folks pretty much always just use the reply function to refer to people also this video is predictably shit in every way and i have no idea why the mods don't at least ask you to stop shitting up this forum but w/e
[QUOTE=Tudd;51867615]Except it is way more dynamic than that and changes on the company and union. So no it isn't de-facto at all. I am willing to say it is actually a pretty smart idea.[/QUOTE] This is very poorly worded. Sounds like you are arguing that the minimum wages of Sweden aren't minimum wages because it doesn't fit what you think of as a minimum wage. A minimum wage is just the minimum amount of pay you can get for a job and Sweden has those in "de-facto".
[QUOTE=Tudd;51867615] His point also included that the poor people who got the minimum wage increase would also have to deal with the inevitable price increases. As opposed to a teenage in high school who can use the money for fuck all purposes.[/QUOTE] Yes, they would have to deal with price increases, that's why the wage goes up (WOW!!!). At the moment, they just deal with the price increases by being poor, which, imo, isn't a good way to deal with prices increasing. Secondly, it could certainly be argued that the teen would still be dealing with price increases, and also that his consumption of goods and services is still beneficial to the poor, because that still contributes to the flow of money and goes into creating demand affecting employment prospects of the poor, who largely work in the sectors where this money will probably be spent. But yeah, as your link says, economists are not necessarily in agreement on what it'd do. Which really isn't surprising because they're still driven by ideology just like policy makers and the general public. But what we have seen based on research and experience tells us why it's key to make sure to work at it gradually and put it at an effective number. Additionally, that's also why I'd argue (and I'm sure most others on the left would too) for a minimum wage increase to not exist in a vacuum. It's a piece of a larger set of policies, including spending on social services, education, and much more in order to reach the desired effect. And in the case of doing all of this together, even if a poor person lost their job due to the increase or things cost more, other measures have been taken to counteract them, therefore maximizing the benefits of the increase while trying to cut away the downsides. [QUOTE=Tudd;51867615]Except it is way more dynamic than that and changes on the company and union. So no it isn't de-facto at all. I am willing to say it is actually a pretty smart idea.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I do wish the US had the infrastructure to do that, but that's not what we have. I'd love to pursue policies to allow for unionization and defend workers rights, then maybe one day we'd be able to have that method work here. In the meantime, raising the minimum wage and considering the cost of living in different areas (Some places should be $15, but Middle-of-Nowhere, Nebraksa, could have a lower one due what the cost of living is there) while also raising yearly it based on the cost of living (with some % cap on how much it can increase) is seemingly the best option.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51867615]Yep. That is a problem but does minimum wage really solve this issue? Especially if the prices just rise to compensate? There are several studies, and I would even argue more numerous, that show quite the opposite. I think what I link below does a pretty good comprehensive job on covering this while looking at the partisan sides. [URL]https://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/inequality/the-effects-of-raising-the-minimum-wage[/URL] His point also included that the poor people who got the minimum wage increase would also have to deal with the inevitable price increases. As opposed to a teenage in high school who can use the money for fuck all purposes. [/QUOTE] Your source contradicts you btw. And says that there's a net positive effect. Also just bringing up mainstream economics when you're talking about "more numerous, that show quite the opposite," I'm arguing from authority just like you, but I'm giving quite literally the most orthodox explanation I can. The thing about the prices is that to pay for the higher wages, money flows from elsewhere. More money on the market causes inflation. Costs get pushed onto consumers, however it also flows from other employee's salaries, shareholder dividends, etc.. So this is just a repeat of what I said before, it depends. Typically though with moderate increases, people are left better off. Also I dislike the minimum wage, just so people know. Expanding the EITC is much better imo. Though even that can be fucked up hard. [quote] Yes he didn't cover that, but it isn't a minimum wage in the traditional way. Except it is way more dynamic than that and changes on the company and union. So no it isn't de-facto at all. I am willing to say it is actually a pretty smart idea.[/quote] Well yeah. But we can't have that in the USA because we hate unions. We can't always have the ideal. I still find it weird of you to deny that it's a minimum wage. Again, going into economics terms, a minimum wage is just a price floor.
i actually agree with him on the minimum wage and wall street stuff. so does fucking everyone else who isn't insane. this is how you get people on your side without actually providing decent arguments: just ignore all the more complicated shit! have all the focus on your video be of stuff everyone knows is dumb as hell and ignore anything else that will make a decent point supporting your target, can't make any bad points if you ignore any positive aspect of sanders, just throw in some buzzwords so your target audience doesn't get bored because you're a fucking shill.
[QUOTE=J!NX;51867290]Man I'm glad he censored F CK otherwise I'd have gotten beaten up because I'm only 9 years old I can't read that language! Gosh![/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Tudd;51867293]Actually I think the $ sign is symbolic of the taxes he would implement.[/QUOTE] The $ symbol is symbolic of youtube demonetizing your video if you use swears in the title lol
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51867692]Your source contradicts you btw. And says that there's a net positive effect. Also just bringing up mainstream economics when you're talking about "more numerous, that show quite the opposite," I'm arguing from authority just like you, but I'm giving quite literally the most orthodox explanation I can. The thing about the prices is that to pay for the higher wages, money flows from elsewhere. More money on the market causes inflation. Costs get pushed onto consumers, however it also flows from other employee's salaries, shareholder dividends, etc.. So this is just a repeat of what I said before, it depends. Typically though with moderate increases, people are left better off. Also I dislike the minimum wage, just so people know. Expanding the EITC is much better imo. Though even that can be fucked up hard.[/quote] As mentioned elsewhere (discord) but for others to see; I think it would be better to put priority on getting people out of poverty with upward progression actions. Incentivize people to develop skills, community development projects, and fix our education system (vocational skills) to help people truly get out of poverty. Simply raising the minimum wage will not make people magically not poor. Prices increase and the people are still in the same place relative to society. [quote] Well yeah. But we can't have that in the USA because we hate unions. We can't always have the ideal. I still find it weird of you to deny that it's a minimum wage. Again, going into economics terms, a minimum wage is just a price floor.[/QUOTE] It's a system to implement a minimum wage based on the dynamic agreements between unions and businesses. This means that the companies and unions can argue the minimum pay for their own situation and financials and have something completely different than another company. This is not a minimum wage in the same sense of what a federal one sets. It is actually very market dependent while still retaining a focus on moral/ethical standards. Something of which the federal minimum wage doesn't adjust for.
I love how he tries to make fun of people he disagrees with politically with images of random people with down syndrome. Is he in freshman year high school?
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;51867766]I love how he tries to make fun of people he disagrees with politically with images of random people with down syndrome. Is he in freshman year high school?[/QUOTE] I don't even generally care about being "politically correct", but this is just pointless and tasteless. How can you possibly expect people to watch this video when the author is pulling crap like this?
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;51867556]No, really, I don't get it. Why can Tudd clearly post bait threads and get away with it? He literally [i]spams[/i] the forums with them and somehow the mods thing reasonable discussion can ever come from them. I understand not banning people for their political views, but at this point isn't this a little too much? There hasn't been a day in the last month where I look at the popular threads and a quarter of them are Tudd's threads filled with people calling him out for doublethink, shit sources, or otherwise bait-worthy "content."[/QUOTE] Because he's untouchable. Not because it has something to do with the mods, it's to do with the rules. Let's look at every reason why Tudd is hated. "He has shit opinions!" Not bannable. If you think he should be banned for this, then you're TRASH. "He doesn't argue his points properly!" Either by strawmanning, cherrypicking, or abandoning arguments after he realises that he can't humanly argue. A shit argument isn't bannable, leaving an argument any time isn't bannable, but ad hominem (Flaming, trolling) is but he avoids it. "He posts content with an obvious bias!" Only time that can get you a ban is if you post from a blatantly biased source like infowars or breitbart. Tudd admits he gets most of his news from /pol/, so all he has to do is look for an article from a relatively neutral site and post the article on there. The videos section has no rules on bias so he can post garbage like this. "He obviously baits people!" To a lot of people his posts look like baiting but anything he posts can easily be said as "I-I-I just want to know what people think :(". He does this actively by keeping up an appearance on discord where he invites a bunch of people and asks for people's opinion on things or complains about common things that everyone agrees with. On facepunch, he does it by posting something sympathetic like "[B]Sorry about the thumbnai[/B]l, but the the video and contents are legitimate and [B]I am curious on the arguments to the points brought up.[/B]" 99% of people who do nothing wrong rule wise but are hated by most outspoken members of the facepunch community usually leave, whether it be by choice (There's no point in me being here if everyone hates me), "choice" (leaving because of too much hate), or getting banned for some other reason. Tudd enjoys being on FP. Tudd doesn't care if people hate him. Tudd isn't a rulebreaker. Mods enjoy banning idiots who flame the fuck out of Tudd, so they enjoy him being on here. Tudd will stay and there's really no point in trying to get him banned.
im pretty sure the mods leave these threads up to bait the people who come in to flame and troll. Anyway this video is retarded
How embarrassing.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51867765]As mentioned elsewhere (discord) but for others to see; I think it would be better to put priority on getting people out of poverty with upward progression actions. Incentivize people to develop skills, community development projects, and fix our education system (vocational skills) to help people truly get out of poverty. Simply raising the minimum wage will not make people magically not poor. Prices increase and the people are still in the same place relative to society. It's a system to implement a minimum wage based on the dynamic agreements between unions and businesses. This means that the companies and unions can argue the minimum pay for their own situation and financials and have something completely different than another company. This is not a minimum wage in the same sense of what a federal one sets. It is actually very market dependent while still retaining a focus on moral/ethical standards. Something of which the federal minimum wage doesn't adjust for.[/QUOTE] Minimum wage increases don't decrease employment in the long term. [QUOTE]In July 1988, California's minimum wage rose from $3.35 to $4.25. During the previous year, 11% of workers in the state and 50% of California teenagers had earned less than the new state minimum. Using published data and samples from the Current Population Survey, the author compares changes in the labor market outcomes of California workers to the corresponding changes in a group of states with no increase in the minimum wage. The minimum wage increase raised the earnings of low-wage workers by 5–10%. Contrary to conventional predictions, however, there was no decline in teenage employment, or any relative loss of jobs in retail trade. [/QUOTE] [url]http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001979399204600104[/url] [QUOTE]Two findings at variance with conventional predictions are that (1) employment increased more in those firms likely to have been most affected by the 1991 minimum wage increase than in other firms and (2) price changes were unrelated to mandated wage changes.[/QUOTE] [url]http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001979399204600102[/url] [QUOTE]The employment effect of the minimum wage is one of the most studied topics in all of economics. This report examines the most recent wave of this research – roughly since 2000 – to determine the best current estimates of the impact of increases in the minimum wage on the employment prospects of low-wage workers. The weight of that evidence points to little or no employment response to modest increases in the minimum wage. The report reviews evidence on eleven possible adjustments to minimum-wage increases that may help to explain why the measured employment effects are so consistently small. The strongest evidence suggests that the most important channels of adjustment are: reductions in labor turnover; improvements in organizational efficiency; reductions in wages of higher earners ("wage compression"); and small price increases. Given the relatively small cost to employers of modest increases in the minimum wage, these adjustment mechanisms appear to be more than sufficient to avoid employment losses, even for employers with a large share of low-wage workers.[/QUOTE] [url]http://i.fidhouse.com/fidelitynews/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/min-wage-2013-02.pdf[/url] [B]But here's the most important bit[/B] And prices [B]DO NOT[/B] increase [B]proportional to wage increase[/B]. You end up with more spending money and thus more consuming and thus a stronger economy in every case. [QUOTE]Despite the different methodologies, data periods and data sources, most studies found that a 10% US minimum wage increase raises food prices by no more than 4% and overall prices by no more than 0.4%. This is a small effect. Brown (1999, p. 2150) in his survey remarks, “the limited price data suggest that, if anything, prices rise after a minimum wage increase”. [/QUOTE] Which in layman's terms means that if your earning and spending are equal at 100 dollars, and your wage increases 10% to 110 dollars, then your spending increases less, and you have money left over. [url]https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=260116123082073081072115076116064089014010017032055005018071001097031064101011090124103017054013044015041125094071017067097062055070034010108084005124072117024073009052104018108112126017067095010092121121007096120091089091075026001025006117002125&EXT=pdf[/url]
I don't see how you ever expected me to believe you were a friendly person Tudd when the people who's videos you post fucking mock disability in the way he does. If you ever want me or others to treat you seriously [I][B]stop posting the views of obviously toxic and awful individuals.[/B][/I]
[QUOTE=EcksDee;51867865] [B]But here's the most important bit[/B] And prices [B]DO NOT[/B] increase [B]proportional to wage increase[/B]. You end up with more spending money and thus more consuming and thus a stronger economy in every case. [/QUOTE] I wish Ontario minimum wage wasn't just tied to inflation rates. [editline]24th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51867868]I don't see how you ever expected me to believe you were a friendly person Tudd when the people who's videos you post fucking mock disability in the way he does. If you ever want me or others to treat you seriously [I][B]stop posting the views of obviously toxic and awful individuals.[/B][/I][/QUOTE] Anyone who [B]still [/B]supports Trump is almost guaranteed to be obnoxious and toxic.
Even by the standards of political discourse on this forum, this is a really shit youtube channel.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51867504]Tudd. The video you posted was garbage. Garbage memes, garbage jokes, garbage arguments, garbage sources. Why do you continue to post this type of garbage?[/QUOTE] i'll give you one guess why [sp]garbage poster[/sp]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51867790]"He doesn't argue his points properly!" Either by strawmanning, cherrypicking, or abandoning arguments after he realises that he can't humanly argue. A shit argument isn't bannable, leaving an argument any time isn't bannable, but ad hominem (Flaming, trolling) is but he avoids it. [/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure posting a super contradictory argument to everyone else and then not event making any attempt at actually defending it can be considered shitposting since you're making a post just to rile up and masking it with it trying to start a proper discussion.
[QUOTE=simkas;51867933]I'm pretty sure posting a super contradictory argument to everyone else and then not event making any attempt at actually defending it can be considered shitposting since you're making a post just to rile up and masking it with it trying to start a proper discussion.[/QUOTE] yes but sometimes that unmasking might just end up with you ripping their face off
[QUOTE=Tudd;51867615]That is a problem but does minimum wage really solve this issue? Especially if the prices just rise to compensate? [...] His point also included that the poor people who got the minimum wage increase would also have to deal with the inevitable price increases. As opposed to a teenage in high school who can use the money for fuck all purposes.[/quote] I don't understand how this argument is supposed to work. Raising prices will never 1:1 "compensate" a minimum wage increase, it doesn't make sense mathematically. That would only happen if 100% of a company's costs were paying minimum wage salaries. The actual percentage of the final price that goes into that is much lower than that, so for someone who works at minimum wage, raising is still very much a net benefit when it comes to the affordability of the cost of living. [Quote]Yes he didn't cover that, but it isn't a minimum wage in the traditional way. [editline]24th February 2017[/editline] Except it is way more dynamic than that and changes on the company and union. So no it isn't de-facto at all. I am willing to say it is actually a pretty smart idea.[/QUOTE] Yes, it is pretty smart... ...As long as your country has actual, strong unions. That's far from being the case in the US, and I doubt you'd support undertaking the necessary steps to change that fact. It's not like a government-mandated fluctuating minimum wage based on location and cost of living is impossible anyway. Union-based negotiation would be better but that's sure as fuck not happening in your country, and certainly not under this adminstration.
This thread is a shitshow on so many levels If you think that Tudd is a troll then why the fuck are you giving him attention? Trolls feed on attention, especially negative attention. If nobody responded to his constant stream of alt-right posting then he'd have no reason to do it. Even if Tudd isn't a troll you are still encouraging him by responding. Give it a rest. Now let's assume that Tudd isn't a troll and that he actually wants to have a proper debate. If you're not going to refute his points then why bother posting at all? He'll just keep insisting that you're dodging his questions. The conversation will go absolutely nowhere. It's fair to say that Naked Ape is questionable, but if you're going to argue that the video is full of false information then why not actually back that up with some evidence? Saying that you don't want to give Naked Ape views isn't an excuse. Download the video from YouTube and rehost it somewhere else so people can watch it without increasing the viewcount. If you're just going to post that you don't want to watch the video you are giving Tudd a reason to continue. Either watch the video and attempt to refute the points or don't post at all. This isn't difficult to understand [editline]6:48 AM[/editline] This post was a bit much on my part. I apologize for getting worked up
[QUOTE=Tudd;51867572]Actually Steven Crowder is pretty honest on debates. He invites opposition on quite regularly. Wish more people did that. It is why I like Bill Maher alot more than the usual liberal pundit shows.[/QUOTE] Bleh, I don't trust Crowder since he picked a fight with OWS protesters and edited the video to make himself look like the victim. Maybe he debates good, but nah well is poisoned for me.
[QUOTE=C0linSSX;51868171]If you think that Tudd is a troll then why the fuck are you giving him attention? Trolls feed on attention, especially negative attention. If nobody responded to his constant stream of alt-right posting then he'd have no reason to do it. Even if Tudd isn't a troll you are still encouraging him by responding. Give it a rest.[/QUOTE] So, instead, you respond by encouraging the people that oppose him with negative attention, I suppose. By your logic, if we're such a blight, the best course of action is to ignore us. We have as much prerogative to criticize him for being a chronically poor poster at large as we do the content of his thread/posts, doubly so when nothing's being done about him. [editline]24th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;51868177]Bleh, I don't trust Crowder since he picked a fight with OWS protesters and edited the video to make himself look like the victim. Maybe he debates good, but nah well is poisoned for me.[/QUOTE] He has some good points on gun control, but honestly they make themselves without his help, and I certainly can't excuse some of the dumber shit he's done, so.
[QUOTE=Sonador;51868188]So, instead, you respond by encouraging the people that oppose him with negative attention, I suppose. By your logic, if we're such a blight, the best course of action is to ignore us.[/QUOTE] You definitely have a point there, I'm not helping by getting annoyed. If anything I'm making things worse. I'm just extremely tired of the constant spam about Tudd on the forums, especially in threads where he hasn't posted at all. [quote]We have as much prerogative to criticize him for being a chronically poor poster at large as we do the content of his thread/posts, doubly so when nothing's being done about him.[/quote] I agree, but I feel like you're fighting a losing battle. Complaining about Tudd hasn't convinced the mods to take action. It's obvious that he's not going to stop any time soon (as ROFLBURGER pointed out earlier). Something has to change, and it doesn't seem like it's going to be the mods' position on Tudd.
[QUOTE=C0linSSX;51868212]You definitely have a point there, I'm not helping by getting annoyed. If anything I'm making things worse. I'm just extremely tired of the constant spam about Tudd on the forums, especially in threads where he hasn't posted at all. I agree, but I feel like you're fighting a losing battle. Complaining about Tudd hasn't convinced the mods to take action. It's obvious that he's not going to stop any time soon (as ROFLBURGER pointed out earlier). Something has to change, and it doesn't seem like it's going to be the mods' position on Tudd.[/QUOTE] I think I had you pegged completely wrong. And yes, I did it once and got boxed to hell for it, I probably won't do it again. On your second point, I think it just comes down to two kinds of people; ones that let conflict be in hopes it will resolve itself and don't wish to worsen it, and people like me who feel like doing nothing is consent. At this point I'm fairly convinced the only reason Tudd's still around is by virtue that letting him continue to post serves as proof Facepunch isn't a liberal echo chamber and the administration is leveraging that for the greater good of the forum and associated company. Honestly, if Tudd posted with some semblance of intelligence and at least attempted to mask the fact that he just posts to troll, I and a great deal of others wouldn't have a problem with him. I can happily coexist with someone with a differing opinion to me, so long as they're not being obnoxious about it. In general, though, and not directed at you: If you want people to stop bitching about Tudd's poor behavior, there's a very simple solution and I promise it isn't banning everyone that gets upset with him.
[QUOTE=C0linSSX;51868212]You definitely have a point there, I'm not helping by getting annoyed. If anything I'm making things worse. I'm just extremely tired of the constant spam about Tudd on the forums, especially in threads where he hasn't posted at all.[/QUOTE] I don't think you're necessarily making things worse, people would still be responding to this thread (or the next bait thread) regardless of whether or not you asked them to stop. Of course, there's a slim possibility people might stop responding to troll threads now that you've mentioned it, which would be making things better I suppose. [QUOTE]I agree, but I feel like you're fighting a losing battle. Complaining about Tudd hasn't convinced the mods to take action. It's obvious that he's not going to stop any time soon (as ROFLBURGER pointed out earlier). Something has to change, and it doesn't seem like it's going to be the mods' position on Tudd.[/QUOTE] Regardless of whether or not it is intentional by either party, there seems to be a clear pattern of behavior here where obvious bait threads are being posted and other posters are taking the bait and responding to them. The current situation doesn't seem to be working, so the only solutions are to encourage you guys to either stop responding to the bait threads entirely or to just have a few people responding with one or two posts that covers the topic or shuts down the argument pretty conclusively so that no one else has any reason to keep posting and thereby continuously bumping the thread to the top of the list.
I honestly think either making the ignore user function make their threads vanish or enabling a checkbox to not bump a thread with a reply would very easily solve the problem.
uh, 600k for a house isn't even that expensive 30 seconds in and what the fuck
[QUOTE=Tudd;51867572]Actually Steven Crowder is pretty honest on debates. He invites opposition on quite regularly. Wish more people did that. It is why I like Bill Maher alot more than the usual liberal pundit shows.[/QUOTE] steven crowders the kind of guy to have an honest debate with somebody, shake their hand and say thanks and then run back home and edit the footage and upload it as "LIBERAL GETS OWNED!!! LOL"
[QUOTE=Tudd;51867535]So right wing think tanks are automatically dismissed instead of explaining why they are wrong, Sweden doesn't have a minimum wage (you failed to elaborate the full story tho and naked ape did too), and you just list off a few other points not elaborating on it.[/QUOTE] [B]no that's not how this works[/B] you can't look at a list of points and go "ok, i'm going to kind of reply to just one of them :^)" you either have to admit those points are solid, or you have to argue against all of the points
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.