• Naked Ape | Bernie Sanders is a F$cking Moron
    159 replies, posted
Minimum wage should be based by each states cost of living. For example in South Carolina where I live cost of living it isn't even comparable to New York. I personally make $11.50 an hour, live in an apartment, pay insurance, pay all my bills without government assistance, and can even put back $200-300 dollars a month. I would not at all classify myself as in living poverty. Thus is why $15 in SC makes absolutely no sense. $15 in New York or California is a completely fair argument. Now I will note I am single so my wage isn't supporting a family so it would be mighty hard for me to support children off of that wage. So there are fair arguments to make in that regard, but typically when talking about families there are at least two incomes so that would balance it. Anyways my point being $15 dollars across the board doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but mandating wages on cost of living per state makes more sense in my opinion.
[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;51868603][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[/QUOTE] and yet thats exactly what he did. he posted bullshit, got people riled up and banned, said shit points that got easily refuted, and then left.
[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] He's a comedian that isn't even good at comedy, look at this awkward garbage he puts out: [video=youtube;wFwVjPrN2MM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFwVjPrN2MM[/video] "honest" does not necessarily mean "fair", "impartial", or "credible".
[QUOTE=Sonador;51868247]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.[/QUOTE] There are userscripts for that iirc
Man Tudd has been pushing this moron on here for literally MONTHS now. I've called him out on this before, but it seems like Naked Ape is just a part of his essential daily viewing that he cant give up. I just dont get why someone like Tudd who is oh so obsessed with his whole "rationally debate my points!!" thing would be so invested in someone who only cares about outrage, clickbait, and being massively intellectually dishonest
When the fuck will fucking knobheads like OP fucking understand that calling left wing politicians "cucks" is practically shooting yourself in the foot? How the fuck is a person who is against some stupid cunt sitting on a wheelchair spinning around and drinking coffee arbitrarily firing random workers taking up the majority of the yield of your product a fucking "cuck" ? The capitalists are the figurative cuckolds here, especially working class people who believe in capitalism are figurative cuckolds, they eat it fucking raw and let the fat cats take the majority of their wealth, for what purpose? Bernie might be a social democrat but he is a classic social democrat, like Lenin, he is not the modern socdem who does nothing but perpetuate capitalism while running an expensive state business that barely benefits the people, so not only is the worker cucked to the capitalist, he is also cucked to the state who is in the pockets of the capitalist. How the fuck is "the left" cuckoldry?
Calling someone a cuck shows a hilarious amount of sexual insecurity.
[QUOTE=CatFodder;51868898]Calling someone a cuck shows a hilarious amount of sexual insecurity.[/QUOTE] No, it's a mark of a daily intake of /pol/ through an IV drip.
[QUOTE=space1;51868694]He's a comedian that isn't even good at comedy, look at this awkward garbage he puts out: [video=youtube;wFwVjPrN2MM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFwVjPrN2MM[/video] "honest" does not necessarily mean "fair", "impartial", or "credible".[/QUOTE] I found it funny, maybe you don't like his comedy style? He does make some good video though. [video=youtube;Rd8z6sFVIEY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd8z6sFVIEY[/video] [video=youtube;5xJWGoS-f88]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xJWGoS-f88[/video]
Tudd, lets entertain the idea that you're genuine and not just trolling, and that you're genuinely interested in having rational, civil discussions on opposing viewpoints. What did you think was going to happen when you try to get talking points out of a video that says "Bernie sanders is a fucking moron"? From a YouTuber that unironically uses terms like normie and cuck?
Naked Ape is pretty bad and I have seen him post biased stuff. I think he should maybe listen more to people like Sargon of Akkad. He for example has a more centrist viewpoint. In this livestream he talks to Jontron, boogie2988 , Anthony Fantano , Sky Williams [video]https://youtu.be/i1p0apfSCIU[/video]
lets be honest, if i was in tudds position you bet your ass i'd continue to post this sort of shit he successfully baits one to three people into getting banned in these threads, and the mods fear of political bias/enjoying watching people complain means he's essentially banproof it's gotta be entertaining as shit :v:
[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] You're never ever going to get [i]everyone[/i] to ignore him. He's actively baiting shit, someone is going to give him shit.
[QUOTE=Skanic;51869211]Naked Ape is pretty bad and I have seen him post biased stuff. I think he should maybe listen more to people like Sargon of Akkad. He for example has a more centrist viewpoint.[/QUOTE] Fuck off with that shit. We just had a massive thread explaining why Sargon's a manipulative alarmist piece of garbage who does not get a free pass just because he's not a /pol/lack.
In 40 seconds Naked Ape told three blatant lies. [QUOTE=Tudd;51867746]I actually like Naked Ape though and want to share it with people. :v: [/QUOTE] I'm done posting in Tudd threads. It's a waste of time.
You guys are way too aggresive over this, which have been nothing more but disagreeing with tudd and the video (i agree the video is bad, and annoying).
I remember being a young angry privileged teenager once who thought "left wing liberals" were just a bunch of whinny snowflakes who didn't want to work. It's easy to make straw man arguments about people you don't like to validate your frustrations. Or scream against taxes that put your safe space of privilege in disarray. Boy did I learn my lesson once I started working to pay the bills.
[QUOTE=Aredbomb;51869380]Fuck off with that shit. We just had a massive thread explaining why Sargon's a manipulative alarmist piece of garbage who does not get a free pass just because he's not a /pol/lack.[/QUOTE] Okay, so if this is shit than why don't post youtuber who isn't shit.
[QUOTE=C0linSSX;51868171]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] No, this is now how this works. If Tudd is a troll, then he should be banned. Since he's not banned, we need to assume that he's in fact genuinely a part of this position and debate against him [i]which is what many people in this thread are doing[/i]. Don't cherry pick. Look directly above your post and you'll see just that. If anything, Tudd is blatantly ignoring and also cherry picking things to debate in the middle of posts, which means he read that post, realized he couldn't refute anything but that singular point, and decided to omit the rest of it in his 'refutation.' [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] You can't tell me this isn't an absolutely shitpost. He is being disingenuous by misrepresenting Naked Ape as a "think tank," and not only that, he refuses to tackle the single most prevalent and important point in that post: in what way is Naked Ape an acceptable source of information? How is anyone supposed to debate the delusions of a liar? And this isn't even going into the half a dozen other questions ROFLBURGER posed that Tudd deftly dodged. You can't keep blaming other people for Tudd's shitposts. And until the mods do something or Tudd decides he's had his fill, shitshows of threads like this will continue to pop up.
Okay Tudd you can't just defend this shit. It's fucked and you know it. This is the reason people call you out, because you bait people with such shit tier stuff. This is coming from a neutral viewpoint, not saying trump or anything but this dude is a fucking tumor. Why would you even defend him?
[QUOTE=windows098;51869713]Okay Tudd you can't just defend this shit. It's fucked and you know it. This is the reason people call you out, because you bait people with such shit tier stuff. This is coming from a neutral viewpoint, not saying trump or anything but this dude is a fucking tumor. Why would you even defend him?[/QUOTE] Sainus squad all over again. Bending the rules so they can appear morally superior while shitting up the forum.
[QUOTE=windows098;51869713]Okay Tudd you can't just defend this shit. It's fucked and you know it. This is the reason people call you out, because you bait people with such shit tier stuff. This is coming from a neutral viewpoint, not saying trump or anything but this dude is a fucking tumor. Why would you even defend him?[/QUOTE] he's a wind-up merchant, he doesnt actually have to defend anything properly, he'll bait into a ban regardless
If raising minimum wage has no downsides and actually raises employment then why hasn't any country kept raising their minimum wage annually til they were the richest ones around? In fact why isn't every country in a minimum wage race?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51869874]If raising minimum wage has no downsides and actually raises employment then why hasn't any country kept raising their minimum wage annually til they were the richest ones around? In fact why isn't every country in a minimum wage race?[/QUOTE] It's already been explained multiple times in this thread that the effects are not linear It's like taxation, we can't just universally claim that a tax raise/cut is a good or bad idea. There's multiple things that need to be taken into account to figure that out.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51869881]It's already been explained multiple times in this thread that the effects are not linear[/QUOTE] So when people say "it's going to lower employment" they are not necessarily idiots who don't know anything about what they are talking about, they can actually be right if the minimum wage is past the point where raising it not good anymore? And replying with "it actually raises employment" like it's a rule is dishonest and manipulative because like above it all depends on the situation?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51869942]So when people say "it's going to lower employment" they are not necessarily idiots who don't know anything about what they are talking about, they can actually be right if the minimum wage is past the point where raising it not good anymore? And replying with "it actually raises employment" like it's a rule is dishonest and manipulative because like above it all depends on the situation?[/QUOTE] The point is that we are not nearly at that point of diminishing returns yet. The minimum wage is massively lagging behind and many people are working for below it. You're right, it does depend on the situation, but the current situation were in delineates that a reasonable raise is long overdue, at least in the states.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51869942]So when people say "it's going to lower employment" they are not necessarily idiots who don't know anything about what they are talking about, they can actually be right if the minimum wage is past the point where raising it not good anymore? And replying with "it actually raises employment" like it's a rule is dishonest and manipulative because like above it all depends on the situation?[/QUOTE] Both are very reductionist, yes.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51869942]So when people say "it's going to lower employment" they are not necessarily idiots who don't know anything about what they are talking about, they can actually be right if the minimum wage is past the point where raising it not good anymore? And replying with "it actually raises employment" like it's a rule is dishonest and manipulative because like above it all depends on the situation?[/QUOTE] I like how in this example one of the people is making a fair and balanced point and the other is being dishonest and manipulative despite both of them being equally incorrect
"I just don't understand why liberals can't hold a civilized constructive debate." [I]*Posts video equivalent of throwing feces*[/I]
[QUOTE=_Axel;51867976]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] I don't mind moderate increases because of the 1:1 not being exact, but I still think the answer to get more people out of poverty requires other actions than just a minimum increase. [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.[/QUOTE] Depends on if American culture is moving towards a collective ethos to run themselves. Otherwise were too individualistic to pull off anything similar to Germany or Sweden on unions. And I think we can take different approaches to still do well seeing how unions like in the auto-industries can wreck the industry. [editline]24th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Rich209;51868656]Minimum wage should be based by each states cost of living. For example in South Carolina where I live cost of living it isn't even comparable to New York. I personally make $11.50 an hour, live in an apartment, pay insurance, pay all my bills without government assistance, and can even put back $200-300 dollars a month. I would not at all classify myself as in living poverty. Thus is why $15 in SC makes absolutely no sense. $15 in New York or California is a completely fair argument. Now I will note I am single so my wage isn't supporting a family so it would be mighty hard for me to support children off of that wage. So there are fair arguments to make in that regard, but typically when talking about families there are at least two incomes so that would balance it. Anyways my point being $15 dollars across the board doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but mandating wages on cost of living per state makes more sense in my opinion.[/QUOTE] Generally I agree with this. [editline]24th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=ForgottenKane;51869605] You can't tell me this isn't an absolutely shitpost. He is being disingenuous by misrepresenting Naked Ape as a "think tank," .[/QUOTE] Please quote me where I even remotely suggested this. [editline]24th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=EcksDee;51867865]Minimum wage increases don't decrease employment in the long term. [url]http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001979399204600104[/url] [url]http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001979399204600102[/url] [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. 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][/QUOTE] Yah really moderate increases are fine and dandy when job growth can offset the jobs lossed. But I don't think a $15 minimum federal wage would be a comprehensive approach/be too much. Hence why another user who mentioned a more dynamic approach to setting a minimum wag by the state would be far smarter atleast.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.