TheInvaderZim's recent activity

  1. Comment on But Do You Want Dylann Roof To Have Rights? in ~news

    TheInvaderZim Link Parent
    I've got nothing, then. I've always tried to find the common ground, and my only interest is in continuing the discussion to that end, not in finding a win or getting the last word. Relevantly,...

    I've got nothing, then. I've always tried to find the common ground, and my only interest is in continuing the discussion to that end, not in finding a win or getting the last word. Relevantly, that's why I stopped even trying to engage with he-who-shall-not-be-named, because there was no point in doing so on either of those fronts.

    But I find myself repeating the same thing I've thought to myself in the past, in that everyone else is not.

    So I just don't know. It's either a monumental personal failure on my part, I suppose, that I didn't see myself the way you're seeing me, or maybe I just need to excuse myself from the asylum because everyone else really is insane. I can't soundly reconcile with either avenue because neither one entirely makes sense. But you've already chosen the version that suits the narrative and I see no point in disputing it further with that being the case, so, bye, I guess.

  2. Comment on But Do You Want Dylann Roof To Have Rights? in ~news

    TheInvaderZim Link Parent
    No. I am so done with this. I'm obviously being baited in that this dude has pasted the same 1-sentence insubstantial response like 3-4 times to try and get me and engage, and the "personal...

    No. I am so done with this. I'm obviously being baited in that this dude has pasted the same 1-sentence insubstantial response like 3-4 times to try and get me and engage, and the "personal attack" was a statement of fact that I can cite a goddamn source for if you want - except maybe not, because I think you killed those comments too! Maybe I shouldn't have have a discussion to start with? My fault. Unironically-I legitimately feel like any time I comment I should have just not bothered.

    This is what, the fourth or fifth time I've made a series of completely valid points and been smacked down because I lost patience with everyone else "correcting" me into being wrong? The fuck do you want from me, Deimos? To just mindlessly agree with everyone else even though they're obviously, provably wrong, or else sit here and say nothing so you can watch over the echo chamber in peace? I really enjoy the discussions that I get with people who actually try and engage, and have had my views changed multiple times, which is what makes it worthwhile, but... what, should I just forgo that and not address anyone who disagrees with me?

    To the point; do you want actual discussion, or do you just want me to go away? I can leave if you prefer, no hard feelings. Because it seems like any time I try to participate, you get antsy that I keep bumping the thread and conflict to the top of the page (something I can do nothing about), the comment threads spiral out of control because I actually try to reply to everyone (you can pick out the threads I'm a part of by the comment count - actual discussion!), and then I get shut down because I get tired of refuting the same point 4-5+ times. You see it as condescension, but I'm sure you can understand how tiring it would be when I can literally copy and paste entire comments multiple times as new responses, sometimes.

    So, what? TLDR Here is me, the user, asking you, the leader, how I can do better, and to a larger extent, what you want the platform to be, because I get as much interest and enjoyment in stirring the pot against you as you do against me but simultaneously am continually wading through garbage in order to get to the parts I actually want to experience.

    1 vote
  3. Comment on But Do You Want Dylann Roof To Have Rights? in ~news

    TheInvaderZim Link Parent
    I'm aware of the concept and enjoy it. Thank you for so thoroughly sourcing! I think the biggest problem with it is it basically turns voting into jury duty - a theoretically important concept...

    I'm aware of the concept and enjoy it. Thank you for so thoroughly sourcing! I think the biggest problem with it is it basically turns voting into jury duty - a theoretically important concept which most blow off and one that, if you wanted to actively participate in, the system would actively stop you from doing so. Voluntary committee is much more appealing to me and I think would survive for much longer.

    As for the question of who informs the voters, that is a doozy - but when it comes down to it as I said elsewhere, there's a tough pill to swallow that if you want to have a say, the facts may not be what you want them to be, and the system itself should enforce objectivity rather than preference. Because the alternative, as, again, stated elsewhere, is that facts become less important and everyone just collectively loses their shit because there's no longer such a thing as truth.

    The system itself would have to defend against misinformation and preconceptions, basically giving, to use low-hanging fruit, any flat-earther that participates a hard slap in the face and telling them to either embrace what's actually true or get out of the way.

    1 vote
  4. Comment on But Do You Want Dylann Roof To Have Rights? in ~news

    TheInvaderZim Link Parent
    Not at all, its a matter of accountability. Assuming that a completed sentence holds a chance of reform, we have a group of people which we're holding accountable to their misdeeds and, moreso,...

    Not at all, its a matter of accountability. Assuming that a completed sentence holds a chance of reform, we have a group of people which we're holding accountable to their misdeeds and, moreso, which could not hold themselves accountable to being proper members of society to begin with. Trust has nothing to do with it - those people have proven that they cannot make responsible choices, and its no more their right to make irresponsible ones for society as a whole than it is yours to drive into oncoming traffic.

  5. Comment on But Do You Want Dylann Roof To Have Rights? in ~news

    TheInvaderZim Link Parent
    Yeah, thats the biggest problem - the idea that objectivity is no longer objective - but its one that we, as a society, simply need to overcome isnt it? Because if you decide that objective facts...

    Yeah, thats the biggest problem - the idea that objectivity is no longer objective - but its one that we, as a society, simply need to overcome isnt it? Because if you decide that objective facts dont matter you may as well just burn the entire system to the ground to get your way, which, hey, look at whats happening now! Although I'd never be caught dead arguing for a similar idea, the ultimate irony about constitutionality is that the original constitution did something similar by only giving the vote to white male property owners - who, at the time, were most likely to be relied on for objectivity and guideance due to their station.

    Its by no means a perfect solution, but the alternative is a slow fall into facism as we collectively go the opposite direction and decide facts dont matter at all, which is what we're doing now. So what, then? Accelerate the process by doing questionable things like letting imprisoned convicts vote? Because the current system has already stopped working as it is, as the American liberal will learn quickly when the dems try to do hillary 2.0 with warren in 2020 and trump wins a second term.

    Even though I know that the system above will never be fully implemented, there is a lot we can learn from it. Putting emphasis on local politics and participation, for example. And at the very least, we can stop things form sliding further in the wrong direction.

  6. Comment on But Do You Want Dylann Roof To Have Rights? in ~news

    TheInvaderZim Link Parent
    It's very simple - a qualification process to vote that anyone can apply for, built by committee, working up from the local level rather than down from the top. The only leap here is assuming that...

    It's very simple - a qualification process to vote that anyone can apply for, built by committee, working up from the local level rather than down from the top. The only leap here is assuming that our education system is competent enough to supply mostly-unbiased and mostly-true information and experts to supply the system, but if you don't believe that then you may as well burn everything to the ground anyway.

    In the interim, this solves almost every problem with our democracy immediately, by ensuring:

    • Everyone's voice has some degree of relatively immediate, noticeable and local impact (where it matters most), and is not overridden by aliens from the next county/city/state over.
    • Anyone can continue to be eligible to vote, regardless of race, gender, nationality, as long as the resources (all of which should always be unconditionally publicly available) are present to enable them the knowledge to do so.
    • Simultaneously, such a system helps filter for bias and gives much more room for even and level-headed discussion at the local level.
    • Finally, the system protects against corruption by eliminating the space of ignorance it thrives in. With more involvement comes more accountability, and far more voices aware of the ins and outs of what's going on.

    "but who designs the entrance requirements?"

    An unbiased third party made up of experts in the field, vetted by a further unbiased fourth party until a consensus is reached.

    "what if that material is still biased?"

    The issue is brought up and voted on by the much more aware and intelligent populous.

    "how do we ensure that everyone has time/resources to become qualified?"

    Resources should always be publicly available and voting days should be holidays. If you still can't afford to educate yourself on the proper way to make a change, you literally cannot afford to help see it implemented properly.

    "how does this stop stratification by, for example, income level, then?"

    anyone should be able to raise issues with adequate public support (a la california's propositions), and the entry process should not be so extreme as to disenfranchise any one population group - financial support to those less fortunate but still wanting to participate is a no-brainer. And if they squander it, they're disqualified.

    Most of this is semantics and a real-world application would be different, but you get the point. Education, then admission, then results.

  7. Comment on But Do You Want Dylann Roof To Have Rights? in ~news

    TheInvaderZim Link Parent
    You've kinda just asked me to describe the entire criminal justice system, lol. You should be given the right to vote back, regardless of your crime, the moment you've paid your debt to society...

    You've kinda just asked me to describe the entire criminal justice system, lol.

    You should be given the right to vote back, regardless of your crime, the moment you've paid your debt to society and walk away free, under the assumption that you are now reformed and capable of making good decisions. Whether or not that's true is an entirely different topic, but any point prior to that and you're trusting the country's future to someone whom (justifiably) you wouldn't even trust with your car keys.

  8. Comment on But Do You Want Dylann Roof To Have Rights? in ~news

    TheInvaderZim (edited ) Link Parent
    I want a qualified democracy, which is still a democracy. ANYONE should be able to qualify themselves to speak on an issue, but if you don't have that qualification, you shouldn't get a say in how...

    I want a qualified democracy, which is still a democracy. ANYONE should be able to qualify themselves to speak on an issue, but if you don't have that qualification, you shouldn't get a say in how things are done. What we are doing now (in the US) is the polar opposite, worst-case scenario, where we put fuel barons in charge of the EPA and unqualified celebrities in charge of the government.

    Question for you: What happens if we gave felons the right to vote? What is the negative effect? What policy are convicted felons going to force through that are (1) Bad and (2) They are going to outvote the general population? What are you afraid of them voting for?

    After seeing the sudden rise of fascism and extremism in democracies all across the world, you really need to ask what happens? Here's a simplified version:

    There are 2.3ish million Americans currently incarcerated.
    That's the population of Alaska and the Dakotas combined, and if they were organized (bear with me), they would be the 35th largest state in the union by population. Which is all to say:
    A) it's a lot of people.

    There are arguments to be made that many of those people should not be in jail, which I agree with, but is beside the point. For simplicity, let's take the number at face value.

    Of those 2.3 million people, their primary interests can be relatively guaranteed to be as follows, for better or worse:

    • Voting against the legislation that put them where they are (depowering criminal law)
    • Making the systems which brought them there as ineffective as possible (depowering law enforcement)
    • Ensuring that they can continue to operate in perpetuity.

    Which isn't to say there's some big conspiracy, it's just to say that:
    B) people in prison want to not be there, and not be put back there. Sensible reform is one thing, but it's much faster, easier and WAY easier to communicate that you just dismantle the entire system.

    Why would you want to (almost literally) give the criminals the keys?

    1 vote
  9. Comment on But Do You Want Dylann Roof To Have Rights? in ~news

    TheInvaderZim Link Parent
    Because otherwise you get Trump. It really is that simple - idiots will elect people who can best appeal to idiots, not people who can make the best decisions. The entire 2-party system is built...

    So why should the economics professor have more say than anyone else?

    Because otherwise you get Trump. It really is that simple - idiots will elect people who can best appeal to idiots, not people who can make the best decisions. The entire 2-party system is built on this principle. Except our new democracy - even though it is representative democracy - just doesn't work when the tyranny of the majority trends towards self-destruction. This is relevant now more than ever, as the internet has taken the problem and accelerated it, and it's only going to continue to get worse. We as a society have decided to substitute "the facts are" for "I think" and it's doing enormous damage to progress as a whole.

    The idea of qualifying yourself before you can have a say on a subject is not an evil one, even though it is enormously unpopular in western society where we elect celebrities instead of scientists. I'd like to live in a world where everyone is smart and makes decisions in the greater interests, but we don't. The simple truth is,

    The Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Congressional Research, and our representatives' own staffs are chock full of informed professionals whose jobs it is to craft the policies themselves.

    There is nothing guaranteeing this to be true, and it's far from a fact.

    That's all I have to say on the subject, because I have trouble seeing how it's a debate. The ONLY way you can hope to progress as a society is by putting the people who actually know what they're doing in charge of things, and our former illusion of free democracy has been completely upended by information overload, because no one has any control over the conversation anymore.

    Sacrificing that progress just so the uneducated masses feel like they have a say in matters which they should not have a say in is, provably, problematic. That's all I've got.

    1 vote
  10. Comment on But Do You Want Dylann Roof To Have Rights? in ~news

    TheInvaderZim Link Parent
    I'd have more faith in allowing it if our prison system was better. Having heard the arguments from both sides now, the fact of the matter is our system is designed to keep people in jail, not...

    I'd have more faith in allowing it if our prison system was better. Having heard the arguments from both sides now, the fact of the matter is our system is designed to keep people in jail, not rehabilitate them. If that were different, then I could see arguments for voting rights, but were a long way off.

    With this fact alone in mind, you have to ask yourself: do I want a thief, murderer, pedophile, sex trafficker or drug dealer, one who has been proven guilty and who is not by any stretch of the imagination been reformed, to be able to shape public policy? For me, that answer is a resounding no.

    As it is, the bar to vote is already far too low - its absurd that in our democracy, an economics professor has exactly as much say in shaping economic policy - or an expert on race rights exactly the same as a KKK member for issues of representation. Giving those currently incarcerated the right to vote while we hold them to account for being criminals seems like an enormous leap in the wrong direction.

    3 votes
  11. Comment on Looking for insight in to Trump's Taxes in ~talk

    TheInvaderZim Link Parent
    You can't omit income anything but you can choose what to report as profit and loss.

    You can't omit income anything but you can choose what to report as profit and loss.

  12. Comment on Looking for insight in to Trump's Taxes in ~talk

    TheInvaderZim Link Parent
    thanks! I don't shy away from the washington post, they generally do decent work. Looks like I've got some reading to do!

    thanks! I don't shy away from the washington post, they generally do decent work. Looks like I've got some reading to do!

    9 votes
  13. Comment on Looking for insight in to Trump's Taxes in ~talk

    TheInvaderZim Link Parent
    Got a good summary I could read from somewhere? That's news to me.

    Got a good summary I could read from somewhere? That's news to me.

    3 votes
  14. Comment on Looking for insight in to Trump's Taxes in ~talk

    TheInvaderZim Link
    Lol, russian money laundering. Like Pizza-gate, but for liberals. Your accountant probably told you that because the income level on your business is so low as to be negligable. With the idea...

    Lol, russian money laundering. Like Pizza-gate, but for liberals.

    Your accountant probably told you that because the income level on your business is so low as to be negligable. With the idea being that you cant file your woodworking hobby as a business and claim losses on it for tax reasons because its... Not a business.

    From the bits I know about big finance, everything Trump has said about his losses holds up. You choose what to report and if youre privately held then theres no reason to report endlessly higher profits if itd be detrimental to you.

  15. Comment on Facebook Faces a Big Penalty, but Regulators Are Split Over How Big in ~tech

    TheInvaderZim Link Parent
    you're somewhat unique in that idea, though, which is part of the problem. It seems that people have gotten used to "free" services, they want to have the free lunch and eat it too. Social...

    I would be more than happy to pay a small fee for a subscription to a social network if it meant they would take my data seriously.

    you're somewhat unique in that idea, though, which is part of the problem. It seems that people have gotten used to "free" services, they want to have the free lunch and eat it too. Social networks would not exist at the scale they are now if you had to pay a fee, and what's more, they're built on the backs of communities which can't afford to do so (children & teens, poor communities & nations).

    The best solution will be a middle ground. Facebook deliberately does not offer the option a la youtube red to pay an optional subscription and avoid the problems of data collection and advertisement, and that's what needs to happen - if it's paywalled people will just get around it or stop using it (as we're seeing with news websites).

    3 votes
  16. Comment on YouTube renews Cobra Kai for season 3, makes all shows free in ~tv

    TheInvaderZim Link Parent
    Youtube red is definitely worth it for the uninterrupted music on their app, alone. As for the original series though... Yeah, probably not. It kinda blows my mind at how poorly youtube tried to...

    Youtube red is definitely worth it for the uninterrupted music on their app, alone. As for the original series though... Yeah, probably not.

    It kinda blows my mind at how poorly youtube tried to monetize their creators, to be honest. Here they have a platform filled with enough talent to rival hollywood, and they did absolutely fuckall with it.

    4 votes
  17. Comment on "If You Want to Kill Someone, We Are the Right Guys" in ~news

  18. Comment on "If You Want to Kill Someone, We Are the Right Guys" in ~news

    TheInvaderZim Link
    I read an excellent article awhile back about how some guy decided to 1v1 one of those scam cyber-hitman sites. It might have been the one mentioned in the article, as the name started with a B...

    I read an excellent article awhile back about how some guy decided to 1v1 one of those scam cyber-hitman sites. It might have been the one mentioned in the article, as the name started with a B and the antagonist's name Y.

    The long and the short of it was, the guy running the site felt like he was justified by running the scam because he was stopping those people from finding and hiring REAL hitmen - and the thing is, he wasnt entirely wrong in that respect. It ended with the vigilante (the guy going after the site) exposing the guy running the scam over and over, but hed never been able to get anyone to take him down and suspected that the guy was actually working with the FBI.

    If that rings any bells for anyone, I'd appreciate you linking the article. It was an interesting read, far moreso (IMO) than this one.

    7 votes
  19. Comment on Burger King is the latest brand to use depression as a marketing tool in ~misc

    TheInvaderZim Link Parent
    Because its a marketing budget... Marketers are not mustasche twirling cartoon villains, out to exploit every angle to make a quick buck. At least, the ones good at their jobs arent, because its...

    Because its a marketing budget...

    Marketers are not mustasche twirling cartoon villains, out to exploit every angle to make a quick buck.

    At least, the ones good at their jobs arent, because its self defeating.

    They had a job and tried to do some good along the way instead of spending time on unmemorable markeitng campaign #4573.

    2 votes
  20. Comment on Burger King is the latest brand to use depression as a marketing tool in ~misc

    TheInvaderZim Link Parent
    That's cynical. They want to sell hamburgers while also raising mental health awareness. Though I agree that the execution is rather poor.

    That's cynical. They want to sell hamburgers while also raising mental health awareness.

    Though I agree that the execution is rather poor.

    4 votes