[QUOTE=Duck M.;51869958]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]
Yeah I know the minimum wage is behind. I'm just pointing out how both those stances are equally oversimplistic.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51869998]Yeah I know the minimum wage is behind. I'm just pointing out how both those stances are equally oversimplistic.[/QUOTE]
That's fair.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51869960]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[/QUOTE]
I like how that's not what I said at all. Them being equally incorrect is my argument. You are seeing things.
Merge
[QUOTE=Tudd;51867274][media]https://youtu.be/kVnO3Ru2N7s[/media]
Sorry about the thumbnail, but the the video and contents are legitimate and I am curious on the arguments to the points brought up.[/QUOTE]
The thumbnail alone makes me hate you for posting this....Its not interesting or a good point if it uses the word "cuck". And frankly, anyone who uses it is 12 or under maturity level.
Also automation= inevtiable universal basic income.
People who voted for trump arent losing their jobs because of the economy or obama, they are losing them due to the inevitable march of technology and energy, and trump isnt going to change that. If you believe he is, [B]you have been deceived[/B] by his corporation backed political machine. He does not care about the american worker any more than bernie, in fact he is slashing consumer protections.
[IMG]https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3438/4593531893_f67a757fa1_m.jpg[/IMG]
[B]Oh yeah and steve bannon IS LITERALLY A FUCKING FACIST, the most unamerican man possible, who practically runs your new little administration[/B]
end of rant
Bernie Sanders is a f$cking MORON and a guy on youtube called Naked Ape who communicates 33% through memes is a genius
[QUOTE=Tudd;51869984]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]
So you do agree that raising the minimum wage can improve poor people's lives.
I don't think anybody here is arguing that solely raising the minimum wage is going to solve the problem of poverty. It would ease the pain those who currently suffer from it though.
[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.[/quote]
You're forgetting that unions used to be much stronger in the US before they were squashed into irrelevance. Individualism wasn't a barrier before so I don't see why it should be now. Besides, solidarity within a union improves everybody's personal working conditions and benefits. Someone who breaks off from that because he prefers being on his own isn't an individualist, he's a moron.
What are the "different approaches" you suggest? I assume it's not government-mandated minimum wage.
[QUOTE=Firetornado;51870051]
[B]Oh yeah and steve bannon IS LITERALLY A FUCKING FACIST, the most unamerican man possible, who practically runs your new little administration[/B]
end of rant[/QUOTE]
How can he be a Facist if he employed 2 homosexual Jews in his "News" site?
[QUOTE=Skanic;51870203]How can he be a Facist if he employed 2 homosexual Jews in his "News" site?[/QUOTE]
How can he be a racist if he has a black friend?
[URL]https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1903/09/why-women-do-not-wish-the-suffrage/306616/[/URL]
just like this guy isn't remotely sexist. He cares about them and wants the best!
[sp]also anti-semitism and homophobia aren't inherent to fascism. so asking about the gay jews is inappropriate[/sp]
[QUOTE=_Axel;51870234]How can he be a racist if he has a black friend?[/QUOTE]
How can he be racist if he is black?
[QUOTE=Skanic;51870266]How can he be racist if he is black?[/QUOTE]
what
(please elaborate)
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51870277]what
(please elaborate)[/QUOTE]
It's a stupid statement, because it's a paradox.
Everyone can throw around words like Facist and Racists.
When I then say how is the a facists if he employed homosexual jews?
To which then he could reply with facts and sources instead of posting "How can he be a racist if he has a black friend?
tudd i don't like you or your posting habits very much.
for every ounce of "legitimate discussion" you proffer you come in hauling a several gallon bucket of total nonsense and act as if it should be taken at the exact same face value as, say, a cnn article
arguably moreso considering you're still sympathetic to the candidate of 'fake news'
this is so counterproductive it's astonishing and i honestly don't think anyone here is obligated to sift through a mountain of garbage for a few gold nuggets of actual, tractable arguments (which a lot of them, they've refuted in some capacity!!)
as much as you may paint yourself as a woefully persecuted but secretly quite enlightened neutral party, you're really no such thing
[QUOTE=Skanic;51870293]It's a stupid statement, because it's a paradox.
Everyone can throw around words like Facist and Racists.
When I then say how is the a facists if he employed homosexual jews?
To which then he could reply with facts and sources instead of posting "How can he be a racist if he has a black friend?[/QUOTE]
I don't think you know [del]what a paradox is[/del] what anything is.
Axel pointed out that your argument was a logical fallacy, he never said that Steve "Throw the jews in a cannon" Bannon was a fascist, so he doesn't have to prove anything. He's not arguing if he's a fascist, just that you committed a logical fallacy with the "He can't be racist if he employs minorities"
Read more here.
[quote]The friend argument is one of the laziest ways to try to worm out of accepting the responsibility for endorsing prejudice. The idea is that someone cannot be prejudiced if they have friends of that demographic; if they had a real prejudice against that full group, then none of them would be okay to hang around, and conversely, then that member of said group would no longer be their friend.
In a rather absurd example, someone can cite a specific example that excuses their general behaviour, for example "how can I be a misogynist, I love my mother."- or, in an even more absurd example "I'm not sexist- after all, all of my girlfriends have been female." While this line of reasoning might be true for someone who genuinely doesn't have a general prejudice, it isn't a good argument to prove it - and it certainly doesn't absolve someone who actually does hold such a belief. Such argumentation can be used as 'evidence' that someone is not prejudiced, but this alone does not amount to 'proof'. The underlying fallacy is that one single point of data, this one "friend," completely overrides any other bits of evidence we have to assess someone's views. This is simply not valid reasoning. The presence (or not) of a prejudice is determined by what follows the "But..." in those above examples, not what comes before.
Often, the excuse is accompanied by the fact that this hypothetical friend is "not typical" of the group being discriminated against. This would be like saying "I have a Muslim friend, he's not a typical Muslim because he doesn't fly planes into buildings," or "my friend is an atheist and he doesn't preach about it like Dawkins". This usually reveals more about where someone's prejudices towards a group stem from; anecdotal evidence, selective reporting of the "bad" ones, or existing stereotypes. The fact is, a person attempting this argument is guilty of forming a prejudice against an entire group by only looking at a few examples that confirm their views.
Having a friend who belongs to a demographic that one hates isn't incompatible with a prejudice against that demographic - and this is the key to the fallacy. A prejudice, is by its etymology a "pre-judgement" of someone, based on more general information that may not necessarily apply to an individual. This can be a relatively benign conclusion ("he's a gay man, he must like fashion") or it can be the considerably more negative ("he's a black man, he's going to stab me"). However, once some has actually gotten beyond the stage of judging someone on prior knowledge, they can change their mind about that individual. In many cases, this might overturn the prejudice entirely but in the case of people using the friend argument, it has only overturned the prejudice against one individual, or maybe a few more. The prejudice, the pre-judgement against a group of people, still stands. This is why saying you have a friend in one particular demographic doesn't excuse racism, homophobia or other prejudice; you can't have a pre-judgement about someone you already know, but you can still maintain your pre-judgement against people you haven't met.[/quote]
[url]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friend_argument[/url]
Sorry English isn't my mother tongue, but you or him still haven't shown any proof that he is a Fascist.
Also way to go an post a biased website.
Why didn't you post it from [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy[/url]
Don't use RationalWiki as a source. It's just as bad as shit like the OP video.
[QUOTE=Skanic;51870443]Sorry English isn't my mother tongue, but you or him still haven't shown any proof that he is a Fascist.[/QUOTE]
I don't intend to, I was merely pointing out that you haven't proven that he isn't.
[QUOTE=Skanic;51870443]Sorry English isn't my mother tongue, but you or him still haven't shown any proof that he is a Fascist.
Also way to go an post a biased website.
Why didn't you post it from [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy[/url][/QUOTE]
His self written memoranda on what he wants isn't good enough eh
[QUOTE=Skanic;51870443]Sorry English isn't my mother tongue, but you or him still haven't shown any proof that he is a Fascist.
Also way to go an post a biased website.
Why didn't you post it from [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Aredbomb;51870454]Don't use RationalWiki as a source. It's just as bad as shit like the OP video.[/QUOTE]
RationalWiki is good for logical and informal fallacies but are absolute garbage when it comes to opinions itself, such as religion and politcal ideologies.
There is nothing wrong with the article I linked, if you like, I can explain it in my own words.
"I have a black friend, therefor I can't be racist." is a flawed argument because it implies that people cannot hate aspects about their friends while still being their friends, and it implies that that there is only one form of racism: The "RACE WAR NOW" type of racists who screech at the thought of talking to anyone who's non-white.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51870525]His self written memoranda on what he wants isn't good enough eh[/QUOTE]
No, what he posted is just a biased and nitpicked as the shitty video OP posted.
I'm sorry Tudd and everyone else who posted here but the minute you try to use a YouTube video as political discourse you lose any right to say you're well versed enough on the topic to have a valid opinion and that's the truth. If your opinion is informed by youtubers then really, you have no opinion besides "what makes this random guy with no credentials or reason for me to trust him angry also makes me angry therefore I agree"
Seriously I don't post in Tudd threads very often but Tudd surely you and your mates can see that you should probably stop buying into reactionary media even if only for the sake of your own advancement intellectually? Saying a YouTube video promotes interesting discussion is like saying an old rabble rousers flyer from the 50s is a valid source of info. It's just...not. Why should we discuss this guys opinions? What makes him so special? Why should we give a shit about what Sargon thinks or Jontron thinks? These guys have literally no reason to give about why we should care
[QUOTE=Skanic;51870591]No, what he posted is just a biased and nitpicked as the shitty video OP posted.[/QUOTE]
Explain to me how the following is on the same level (biased and nitpicked) as the garbage in the op.
[quote]The friend argument is one of the laziest ways to try to worm out of accepting the responsibility for endorsing prejudice. The idea is that someone cannot be prejudiced if they have friends of that demographic; if they had a real prejudice against that full group, then none of them would be okay to hang around, and conversely, then that member of said group would no longer be their friend.
In a rather absurd example, someone can cite a specific example that excuses their general behaviour, for example "how can I be a misogynist, I love my mother."- or, in an even more absurd example "I'm not sexist- after all, all of my girlfriends have been female." While this line of reasoning might be true for someone who genuinely doesn't have a general prejudice, it isn't a good argument to prove it - and it certainly doesn't absolve someone who actually does hold such a belief. Such argumentation can be used as 'evidence' that someone is not prejudiced, but this alone does not amount to 'proof'. The underlying fallacy is that one single point of data, this one "friend," completely overrides any other bits of evidence we have to assess someone's views. This is simply not valid reasoning. The presence (or not) of a prejudice is determined by what follows the "But..." in those above examples, not what comes before.
Often, the excuse is accompanied by the fact that this hypothetical friend is "not typical" of the group being discriminated against. This would be like saying "I have a Muslim friend, he's not a typical Muslim because he doesn't fly planes into buildings," or "my friend is an atheist and he doesn't preach about it like Dawkins". This usually reveals more about where someone's prejudices towards a group stem from; anecdotal evidence, selective reporting of the "bad" ones, or existing stereotypes. The fact is, a person attempting this argument is guilty of forming a prejudice against an entire group by only looking at a few examples that confirm their views.
Having a friend who belongs to a demographic that one hates isn't incompatible with a prejudice against that demographic - and this is the key to the fallacy. A prejudice, is by its etymology a "pre-judgement" of someone, based on more general information that may not necessarily apply to an individual. This can be a relatively benign conclusion ("he's a gay man, he must like fashion") or it can be the considerably more negative ("he's a black man, he's going to stab me"). However, once some has actually gotten beyond the stage of judging someone on prior knowledge, they can change their mind about that individual. In many cases, this might overturn the prejudice entirely but in the case of people using the friend argument, it has only overturned the prejudice against one individual, or maybe a few more. The prejudice, the pre-judgement against a group of people, still stands. This is why saying you have a friend in one particular demographic doesn't excuse racism, homophobia or other prejudice; you can't have a pre-judgement about someone you already know, but you can still maintain your pre-judgement against people you haven't met.[/quote]
Beyond them saying things in public that give you a massive hardon
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51867601]Brah I told you this in the discord.
What is a minimum wage? It's a price floor, where wages cannot be set below it. It just happens that Sweden has multiple "minimum wages" set by very powerful unions.
Sweden, by the way has one of the highest labor costs in all of Europe.
[sp]edit: finding these minimum wages is pretty damn hard though. I'm not looking through several pages of union contracts lol[/sp][/QUOTE]
I gotchu fam. Just to add how things look like in Sweden, fair to compare diff minimum wages and what is expected from people working in different fields. I will give some links and talk about personal experience as i did jobs under 2 of swedens biggest unions. (
[url]https://www.handels.se/lon-och-villkor2/lagstaloner/[/url]
First, this is the union for commerce and trade. It covers more or less any jobs at more or less all kinds of stores of all sizes (provided they have a contract with the union of course, which is almost guaranteed because only really minor operations get away without a union connection. All chain stores in sweden are connected.) Apart from this it also covers some warehouse and logistics professions, like delivery truck drivers).
This is probably the best fucking deal you can get for a job that requires almost 0 education. I worked as a bed salesman for two years, from the age of 19 to 21. To see this salary development, you can look at one of the top most charts. In two years, I got an increase from 119 kr/h to 127 kr/h. Apart from this comes a very nice thing called "vacation reimbursement". Since I was employed by the hour, I had no set vacation (you only get set vacation days with a monthly contract). That means I get 13% of the salary as an addition to the normal pay, so my normal hourly rate was between 134 and 143 SEK. (seems like 134 is just under 15 USD).
Then comes the big fucking doozy. I don't know shit about how other countries do it but in sweden the unions keep a concept called "uncomfortable workhours", where the unions consider that some jobs shouldn't necessarily be on certain hours or days (like evenings or weekends), so they force the employer to pay more.
Now, as far as I have figured, for store or sales work, the normal rate is 150% of your salary if you work evenings (after 18.00), and a whooping [B][I]200%[/I][/B] on weekends! At that bed store, I worked mostly weekends the first year, and that brought me almost 6k USD (roughly, my calcs might be a bit off). This meant I could focus almost 100% on studies and make sure I got extra money from work. Together with the student stipend you recieve, I would pull in roughly 8500-9000 a month(950-1000USD), depending on work (admitedly, I would work a weekday every now and then).
Apart from this i've also worked with hotel and restaurant union-jobs.
[url]http://www.hrf.net/lon-och-villkor/din-lon/minimilon-for-lonegrupp-2/[/url]
(covers minimum for people without ANY education, they have different for people who went through highschool).
[url]http://www.hrf.net/lon-och-villkor/din-lon/ob-tillagg/[/url]
They pay well, too. The base pay for both of these unions land at 13.2 USD roughly for anyone over 18. 14.8 if you count the semester reimbursement.
The third big one is the construction workers union "byggnads". However, I never worked with them except the odd summerjob, and they indeed hide all their info in a shittonne of contracts. But they also almost always concern people who has some specialist education into this (vocational school or similar).
These 3 covers most jobs in Sweden. Guaranteed, most big domestic companies are bound to them. Of course, the system falters a bit with foreign actors (McDonalds has been a huge back and forth between different salaries, and indeed a few years ago their minimum pay was around 8 usd, but recently the unions have gained ground).
Also things like telemarketing shit and stuff like that have full commission jobs, so that you only make way under minimum and have to buffer with commission. IIRC this is not allowed under the unions.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51867478]The mods need to fucking stop pretending to be """neutral""" and curb this shit already. People have been threatened with bans for reporting this obvious troll FFS. To make sure racism, sexism, islamaphobia apologism etc has a voice on FP.
I thought Tudd had gotten bored of spamming R/the_donald skimmings but evidently not.[/QUOTE]
I think we're all aware that Tudd is a weasely little memelord who spends most of his day inhaling propaganda from /pol/ and Breitbart, but he's not currently breaking any rules. As transparent as his, [I]"hey man I'm just presenting some ~alternative viewpoints~"[/I] shtick is, he's abiding by the rules of the forum and will not be banned so long as he continues to do so.
[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]
If you re-read your post, you practically have zero stance and are just yelling at a cloud.
- Oh wow someone already used old man yells at cloud
[editline]24th February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51870896]I think we're all aware that Tudd is a weasely little memelord who spends most of his day inhaling propaganda from /pol/ and Breitbart, but he's not currently breaking any rules. As transparent as his, [I]"hey man I'm just presenting some ~alternative viewpoints~"[/I] shtick is, he's abiding by the rules of the forum and will not be banned so long as he continues to do so.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's cute and all but you ban people for posting their real opinions all the time. People who are legitimately having a discussion (without any insult or attack, mind you) get banned constantly; so why is someone who you clearly know is trolling and riling people up getting a free pass?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51870896]I think we're all aware that Tudd is a weasely little memelord who spends most of his day inhaling propaganda from /pol/ and Breitbart, but he's not currently breaking any rules. As transparent as his, [I]"hey man I'm just presenting some ~alternative viewpoints~"[/I] shtick is, he's abiding by the rules of the forum and will not be banned so long as he continues to do so.[/QUOTE]
The forum has genuinely banned people for less historically.
It's a fucking miracle he hasn't got got yet. Usually the moderation team tend to crack down on people who are clearly fishing for reactions, as that can be quite easily seen as trolling. Tudd clearly posts this shit to feed his ego and get attention, hence the "haha silly boys make up your own minds :~~~)" tier posts he near constantly makes.
I know discussing how the forum is moderated is usually frowned upon outside of a few threads, but seeing as you're here and discussing it already, it can't hurt right?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;51871060]The forum has genuinely banned people for less historically.
It's a fucking miracle he hasn't got got yet. Usually the moderation team tend to crack down on people who are clearly fishing for reactions, as that can be quite easily seen as trolling. Tudd clearly posts this shit to feed his ego and get attention, hence the "haha silly boys make up your own minds :~~~)" tier posts he near constantly makes.
I know discussing how the forum is moderated is usually frowned upon outside of a few threads, but seeing as you're here and discussing it already, it can't hurt right?[/QUOTE]
No, we should go ahead and take it to the [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1550229&page=36"]Forums Discussion Thread in GD[/URL] if you'd like to discuss this further. It'd be better to let other mods weigh in on this, too, and I don't want to derail this (shitty) thread any further with this particular line of discussion.
[highlight][B]That goes for everybody else, too. Only post in this thread to respond to the video and the discussion/debate surrounding it. If you want to talk about why Tudd should be banned, take it to thread I linked above or be banned for derailing.[/B][/highlight]
I don't understand. If you don't like Tudd's opinions or video posts, then stop posting in them.
Sorry but this the fucking dumbest and shittest video I have ever seen.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.