SHARE
TWEET

Untitled

a guest Feb 14th, 2020 109 Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:19 PM
  2. The US also produces about half of the world's nobel prize winners for medicine and physiology, and we invent a ton of drugs, but the incentives are all tilted toward providing super high quality, super expensive care. And that often means getting nothing if you can't afford it.
  3. The biggest reason for this is the way our insurance programs work.
  4. During and after WW2, we had price controls on wages, so in order to attract workers, companies offered insurance benefits for stuff like healthcare.
  5. alessandronlYesterday at 12:20 PM
  6. yea but the tihng is the uss is very large
  7. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:20 PM
  8. Unions decided this was pretty great, and started demanding it with some regularity. Companies like this as well, since payroll taxes applied to wages but not to benefits, so it became a cultural thing that everybody would get insurance through their jobs.
  9. But having insurance paying for everything means people stop caring about how much stuff costs, they just want the best they can get.
  10. And healthcare providers are cool with that, more money for them.
  11. So if you walk into a clinic and ask how much it costs to get a particular procedure done, they look at you like you're crazy.
  12. Because it just goes through insurance, and different insurance companies will have different amounts that they pay, but it's always expensive.
  13. Medical malpractice lawsuits are also a big deal. It's very expensive to have insurance against malpractice, and that drives a lot of risk-minimizing behaviors by doctors and hospitals that really aren't a good use of resources.
  14. So even if you don't need a test, they will do the test every day, and charge like crazy for it, just in case you actually did need it, so you can't sue them.
  15. alessandronlYesterday at 12:24 PM
  16. wel thats jsut fukd up realy
  17. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:24 PM
  18. A lot of Americans, especially on the left, want a government healthcare system. I suspect that it wouldn't be as good as most European countries, because we've already got the VA hospitals as a government healthcare system and they're absolutely terrible.
  19. So I think a national government healthcare system in the US would probably be bad, just because our government is not very good at actually providing services. Part of the problem of being such a large country, I think.
  20. The bigger the country, the less the government is able to run things itself. With a very small country, you can have lots of government programs and they will run more efficiently, but when you've got 300 million people scattered across three thousand miles, and prices of everything are hugely varied all over the place, getting a system that works well everywhere is super difficult.
  21. alessandronlYesterday at 12:27 PM
  22. luly here a hospital cnat refuse service to som1  with a life treathening condition cuas if you cnat aford it the state wil help you and the bit of the ensurance compagen  so that you stay alive and get life saivng medicane/treathment
  23. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:28 PM
  24. And yet somehow the Soviet Union managed to provide free, efficient healthcare for everyone
  25. Despite being larger than the US
  26. MaelkMaelkYesterday at 12:28 PM
  27. Lol
  28. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:28 PM
  29. But then it wasn't ruled by millionaires who were actively interested in making a buck in that stuff
  30. So I guess it's the old argument of "what works in every other country that does it doesn't in the US cause it's special"
  31. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:29 PM
  32. The quality of healthcare in the USSR was not particularly good.
  33. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:29 PM
  34. Said the guy who never lived there
  35. alessandronlYesterday at 12:30 PM
  36. and you had the change of starving to deaht becuas stalin forgot to feed you
  37. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:30 PM
  38. Cause I can tell you from experience, the USSR was lightyears better than anything capitalist Russia or any of the post-Soviet republics have
  39. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:30 PM
  40. The USSR was not able to provide a comparable quality of life on a lot of metrics. I mean, I've seen a caloric breakdown between the USSR and the US during the 1980s.
  41. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:30 PM
  42. You realize the 80's were when capitalist reforms were causing the whole thing to break down
  43. KrolonYesterday at 12:30 PM
  44. ussr? the one that couldn't even feed people?
  45. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:31 PM
  46. So if you were fine with ~10% fewer calories than the Americans were getting, and 40% of your daily calories were from bread, then... hooray?
  47. alessandronlYesterday at 12:31 PM
  48. i cnat realy tell you forma count how the soviet union is caus im form forma fther 2000 so
  49. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:31 PM
  50. As opposed to what, hamburgers?
  51. alessandronlYesterday at 12:32 PM
  52. dam i feel liek the yougsta here
  53. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:32 PM
  54. Meat was a bigger part of the American diet, but it's not like we just eat hamburgers here.
  55. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:33 PM
  56. It's not like the obesity issues the US has are a secret
  57. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:33 PM
  58. The study was done on data from 1984. They figured the Soviet diet wasn't absolutely terrible, because Americans were eating too many calories in the first place, and they figured it would be better if we ate more bread and less fish, poultry, sugar, etc.
  59. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:33 PM
  60. So arguing higher caloric intake = higher quality of life is rubbish
  61. Especially when most of those calories come from low quality food
  62. alessandronlYesterday at 12:33 PM
  63. but msot westren countrys have a obesity problem so
  64. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:33 PM
  65. It's largely about availability. The USSR couldn't provide better, had a hard time producing guns and butter at the same time.
  66. alessandronlYesterday at 12:34 PM
  67. mostly becuas of bad aprenting so
  68. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:34 PM
  69. So there are certainly advantages to having fewer calories and more bread instead of fish, eggs, sugars, etc, but this was largely out of necessity, not choice.
  70. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:34 PM
  71. Is that why East Berlin had vastly lower prices on food than West Berlin
  72. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:34 PM
  73. Prices in a command economy are entirely arbitrary.
  74. alessandronlYesterday at 12:34 PM
  75. if were going to tlak about berlin
  76. west berland was surounded
  77. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:35 PM
  78. They are arbitrary in a market economy
  79. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:35 PM
  80. No, they are not.
  81. alessandronlYesterday at 12:35 PM
  82. coudl rpduce anytihng of its own en and wasd relying on inports so not realy a fair comperison
  83. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:35 PM
  84. They are determined by supply and demand, rather than fiat.
  85. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:35 PM
  86. So jewelry producers buying out diamonds so they can price gouge is not arbitrary?
  87. What about branded goods selling for more cause they got a monopoly on the brand (as opposed to any difference in quality)
  88. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:36 PM
  89. The supply of diamonds is largely procured from within corrupt regimes, it's not comparable.
  90. Brands can be useful to signal status in various ways, so that's not entirely useless.
  91. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:36 PM
  92. Oh, so those are not real capitalism then
  93. Because last I checked those corrupt regimes still operated on the principle of personal profit
  94. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:36 PM
  95. No, a warlord selling blood diamonds is not capitalism.
  96. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:37 PM
  97. What is it then
  98. Feudalism?
  99. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:37 PM
  100. If you try to compete with them you get shot.
  101. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:37 PM
  102. Is he a king renting out land?
  103. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:37 PM
  104. Capitalism is a system of private ownership of the means of production. If the government is run by a strongman dictator who controls the mines, that's not even a little bit like capitalism.
  105. alessandronlYesterday at 12:38 PM
  106. thats socialism
  107. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:38 PM
  108. And what happened in EEurope when they got into the EU? Is WEuropean companies buying out and closing any competing business fair practice then?
  109. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:38 PM
  110. Eh, I wouldn't call it socialism, necessarily, because that's got a hugely nebulous definition depending on who you're talking to.
  111. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:38 PM
  112. If the dictator privately owns the mine it is
  113. Or would you seriously argue it's the workers owning the mines in a dictatorship
  114. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:38 PM
  115. Government ownership and private ownership are mutually exclusive. They cannot both exist at the same time, at all, by definition.
  116. Private ownership is ownership by not the government.
  117. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:39 PM
  118. It's called state capitalism
  119. alessandronlYesterday at 12:39 PM
  120. wel tecnicly waht was comunist penst hous then his or thats of the state
  121. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:39 PM
  122. Which is a term invented by Communists to explain why the government ruining things is really capitalism all along. I don't buy that kind of rhetorical sleight of hand for one second.
  123. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:39 PM
  124. You haven't answered my question BTW
  125. What is it if not capitalism
  126. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:40 PM
  127. Government ownership of the means of production is a command economy.
  128. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:40 PM
  129. You apparently don't know the meaning of the term
  130. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:40 PM
  131. I majored in economics.
  132. I am well aware.
  133. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:40 PM
  134. It was coined by Lenin to describe his economic policies of advancing industrialization via capitalist mode of production
  135. Oh, you're one of those
  136. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:41 PM
  137. What, educated?
  138. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:41 PM
  139. That's basically saying you know why divine mandate is correct cause you majored in theology
  140. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:41 PM
  141. That's pretty ridiculous.
  142. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:41 PM
  143. So tell me then, does economics actually teach you anything besides "10 reasons capitalism is better than everything else"
  144. alessandronlYesterday at 12:41 PM
  145. waht about a roket syantist sayign that a roket moter pusch the roekt is he ridicules?
  146. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:42 PM
  147. Cause that's what economics classes look like in this country
  148. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:42 PM
  149. What country?
  150. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:42 PM
  151. And something tells me the US is gonna be even more ideologically slanted
  152. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:43 PM
  153. I don't see why poor quality education in your country is an argument against economics as a field of study in the US.
  154. Sure, maybe it sucks there. So?
  155. N7HuntsmanYesterday at 12:43 PM
  156. To be fair, even the Communists that could be referred to as "economically successfully" have moved towards Capitalism.
  157. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:43 PM
  158. It's not a matter of poor education, it's a matter of the subject being pure propaganda
  159. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:44 PM
  160. That's just wrong.
  161. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:44 PM
  162. So excuse me if I don't take your degree in mythology seriously
  163. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:44 PM
  164. The mechanisms by which an economy allocates resources are pretty well known. Economists get off into unstable territory when they start modeling beyond the bounds of empirical verifiability.
  165. Which is really easy to get into, since good data is hard to get and you can't do much in terms of experiments, so economics is not a hard science by any stretch even if some math-obsessed types pretend it is.
  166. But I'll tell you what it's really good at: making qualitative statements about the effects of incentives and institutions on the allocation of resources within an economy.
  167. KrolonYesterday at 12:46 PM
  168. tfw you subconsciously skip half the words and have to read again and slowly to not skip anything again
  169. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:46 PM
  170. Except even basic psychological experiments disprove the profit motive
  171. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:46 PM
  172. Uh... I'm pretty sure I do some things for money. Like, my job?
  173. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:47 PM
  174. Which is why it's an ideological subject
  175. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:47 PM
  176. I'm also pretty sure that if I could do something else and get more money without having some other tradeoff that I don't find acceptable, I would do that.
  177. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:47 PM
  178. Most of human interaction happens completely without monetary incentive, even moreso throughout history
  179. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:47 PM
  180. I think it's weird that you can criticize the US healthcare system as being run by millionaires trying to make money and then claim that the desire to make money doesn't actually influence the economy.
  181. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:48 PM
  182. But economists would have us believe that green paper is what drives us
  183. KrolonYesterday at 12:48 PM
  184. would love to see those experiments
  185. all my life I've seen only one person without profit motives
  186. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:48 PM
  187. Wait, do you seriously think that the existence of non-monetary motivations disproves the profit motive? Because there is no economist I have ever heard of who would say that money is the only thing that drives anybody.
  188. N7HuntsmanYesterday at 12:48 PM
  189. Me: https://media3.giphy.com/media/UlqLDtI8Qc0j6/200w.webp?cid=19f5b51a5cd5c76078654c4977d0737a&rid=200w.webp
  190. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:49 PM
  191. Example: person is asked to help offload a truck. Case 1 there's no reward, case 2 small monetary reward, case 3 large monetary
  192. alessandronlYesterday at 12:49 PM
  193. yea its a intrestign debate to watch unfold
  194. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:49 PM
  195. Economics tells us we'd get the most participation in case 3, then 2, then 1
  196. Reality is 3, 1, 2
  197. KrolonYesterday at 12:49 PM
  198. pretty sure that's the other things that drive people to make money
  199. family, privelages, social position, family again etc
  200. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:49 PM
  201. Offering a small monetary reward makes people less likely to help you
  202. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:49 PM
  203. Sure.
  204. Because there is a cost to the utilitarian gain from their assistance.
  205. KrolonYesterday at 12:50 PM
  206. would love to see those experiments in poland XD
  207. for a beer or two you can get any help you can reasonably imagine
  208. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:50 PM
  209. And people have a reflexive rejection of things they think are unfair, so paying people a trivial amount of money to do things is not likely to garner their cooperation instead of just asking them to do stuff for free.
  210. But, again, economists are not unaware of this.
  211. It's part of the reason that they tend to model human behavior in terms of utility instead of money.
  212. Because they are not the same thing.
  213. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:51 PM
  214. Because humans by nature are altruistic and inclined to help each other. They also seek out things like self-actualization after basic needs are met. Money is just a vehicle for profit extraction, in primitive communist societies people just pool resources and distribute on need
  215. alessandronlYesterday at 12:52 PM
  216. yes primitve but countrys arnt primetive
  217. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:52 PM
  218. The problem is that this system doesn't scale well beyond Dunbar's number.
  219. alessandronlYesterday at 12:52 PM
  220. for a tribe thats logical but not for a kingdom
  221. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:52 PM
  222. Primitive communist societies are tribes
  223. alessandronlYesterday at 12:53 PM
  224. yes i know that
  225. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:53 PM
  226. So if you're running a group that's small enough for everyone to know everyone, you can do all kinds of stuff that doesn't scale to the level where not everyone knows each other.
  227. Hell, at the family level you've basically got completely communal ownership of property and a command economy running all of it.
  228. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:54 PM
  229. So why can't equal distribution work on a modern society then
  230. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:54 PM
  231. But when you try to run an economy with millions of people, or even thousands of people, along those lines, then it becomes impossible because you need a system for allocating resources that incorporates more information than one person could possibly collect.
  232. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:54 PM
  233. It's not like super markets handle their internal logistics based on supply and demand, the one company that tried that failed hilariously
  234. KrolonYesterday at 12:54 PM
  235. @NoImageAvailable because parasites and people who cheat
  236. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:54 PM
  237. In a market economy, resources are allocating according to consumer preferences on the one hand and the availability of those resources on the other hand.
  238. KrolonYesterday at 12:54 PM
  239. "on need" doesnt work because of that
  240. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:54 PM
  241. Right, firms are not themselves market economies.
  242. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:54 PM
  243. How many parasites would there have to be to steal half the world's wealth?
  244. KrolonYesterday at 12:54 PM
  245. "equally" is problematic in itself
  246. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:55 PM
  247. Cause that's what the current 1% got hoarded
  248. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:55 PM
  249. This is also why a firm can't be the entire economy; it would run into the same problem of economic calculation.
  250. I think you have a pretty simplistic idea of how much control they actually exert over this.
  251. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:56 PM
  252. Oh and how do they determine what to stock then
  253. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:56 PM
  254. Supply and demand.
  255. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:56 PM
  256. Do they not calculate demand, do they not allocate supply based on that?
  257. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:56 PM
  258. They don't calculate demand. They observe it.
  259. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:56 PM
  260. Do they not adjust based on observation?
  261. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:56 PM
  262. Demand is signaled through consumer purchases.
  263. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:56 PM
  264. Which is exactly how any planned economy runs
  265. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:56 PM
  266. If you have an equal distribution of everything, you don't have demand signals.
  267. Because everyone just gets the same.
  268. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:57 PM
  269. I'm not talking about rations
  270. If I pick something up at the store, whether I paid "monies" for that or not, it's evident I have a demand for that good
  271. Therefore supply should be adjusted to reflect that
  272. This is the same in a market or planned economy
  273. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:58 PM
  274. The problem is that you have no way of signaling your demand for that good relative to an alternate use of the same resources.
  275. A price system incorporates that information.
  276. Automatically, I might add. It scales indefinitely.
  277. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:59 PM
  278. Except this is irrelevant with an abundance of resources
  279. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:59 PM
  280. An economy without a price system does not allocate resources along those lines, because the only channel for information to be transmitted is what the government collects.
  281. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:59 PM
  282. The modern reality is we already produce far more than we need
  283. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:59 PM
  284. The idea that resources are so abundant that you don't have to consider alternate uses for them is extremely naive.
  285. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 12:59 PM
  286. But the distribution sucks because it is based on ability to pay for it
  287. Not use value, not demand
  288. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 12:59 PM
  289. The USSR sure as hell never got anywhere near that point.
  290. Even the US isn't at a point where we can just produce anything in endless quantities and not have to consider alternate uses for the same resources. We'll never reach that point.
  291. alessandronlYesterday at 1:01 PM
  292. and the eraht owtn liek it
  293. thats for usre
  294. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 1:01 PM
  295. A centrally planned economy cannot prioritize between alternate uses of the same resources except by political decision, whereas a market economy aggregates all of the information about the availability of resources and consumer preferences into a single signal: the price.
  296. alessandronlYesterday at 1:01 PM
  297. sure
  298. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 1:01 PM
  299. Let's take a practical example
  300. We produce enough food per year to feed 120% of the world's population
  301. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 1:02 PM
  302. You can thank capitalist countries for that, by the way.
  303. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 1:02 PM
  304. That isn't a matter of "alternate use of resources"
  305. It's a matter of we already have more than enough
  306. Pfff
  307. Capitalist countries distribute said food based on ability to pay
  308. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 1:03 PM
  309. We make more than enough because we don't just want to eat grain all the time. A lot of it is fed to cows so we can have meat, milk, etc.
  310. Wastage is also a problem. More so in centrally planned economies, of course.
  311. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 1:03 PM
  312. Which leads to people in first world countries being marketed low quality junk food leading to obesity, while countries in the third world starve
  313. A distribution based on demand would see an equal proportion of high quality food going out to everyone
  314. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 1:03 PM
  315. No, it would not.
  316. I don't think you know what demand is.
  317. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 1:04 PM
  318. People whine about the USSR having a single famine, but under capitalism starvation is a daily reality for the majority of the population
  319. alessandronlYesterday at 1:04 PM
  320. and even then do you thinkt he world would do that
  321. KrolonYesterday at 1:04 PM
  322. what kind of economy is in most of africa? @Pax_Empyrean
  323. KrolonYesterday at 1:22 PM
  324. @Pax_Empyrean well, country can invade other country to enlarge margins of own market
  325. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 1:22 PM
  326. You know, public ownership also allows you to make huge amounts of money.
  327. So it's not like money itself is a strictly capitalist construct. I'm given to understand that kings tended to be pretty rich, on average.
  328. zozilinYesterday at 1:23 PM
  329. But kings took loans from merchant republics. Sooo
  330. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 1:23 PM
  331. Kings predate merchant republics by thousands of years.
  332. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 1:24 PM
  333. No it doesn't. Communal ownership means you're locked to the value of your own labor
  334. Private means you can make as much money as you can find workers to exploit
  335. zozilinYesterday at 1:24 PM
  336. They were also never as obscenely rich.
  337. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 1:24 PM
  338. That's why you can get filthy rich in capitalism
  339. alessandronlYesterday at 1:24 PM
  340. but is that a bad thing no it is not
  341. look at elon muskt or jef bezo
  342. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 1:25 PM
  343. I'm pretty sure that Mansa Musa was the richest guy to ever live.
  344. alessandronlYesterday at 1:25 PM
  345. ther doing wonderful things
  346. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 1:25 PM
  347. It's not a bad thing to have half the population starving?
  348. Those guys aren't doing jack, the people working for them are
  349. alessandronlYesterday at 1:25 PM
  350. richest king but not richest person
  351. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 1:25 PM
  352. Not even half of the population of the world is starving, much less half the population in capitalist countries.
  353. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 1:25 PM
  354. Bezos is making people piss in bottles
  355. alessandronlYesterday at 1:25 PM
  356. and beozs is andavching siece
  357. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 1:25 PM
  358. Right, Africa not capitalist, I forget
  359. alessandronlYesterday at 1:25 PM
  360. a much beter thing to do
  361. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 1:26 PM
  362. Warlords are not capitalism.
  363. KrolonYesterday at 1:26 PM
  364. looks at starving history of communistic ussr
  365. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 1:26 PM
  366. No, no, let him keep claiming that starvation is a capitalist problem, this is funny. :smiley:
  367. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 1:26 PM
  368. One famine as opposed to what, every few years in the empire?
  369. MaelkMaelkYesterday at 1:26 PM
  370. still, mostly capitalist countries's fault if Africa is starving
  371. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 1:27 PM
  372. But I guess every single indicator of QoL dropping in every single post-soviet republic since the breakup is evidence of their evil
  373. Pax_EmpyreanYesterday at 1:27 PM
  374. Um. Yeah, that's not actually true?
  375. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 1:27 PM
  376. Dude, are you not even gonna pretend to be factual now
  377. GTFO
  378. Anyways, this discussion has gone too far
  379. Ending it here
  380. alessandronlYesterday at 1:28 PM
  381. so nolmage what country in history has the best economic system in your opinun
  382. KrolonYesterday at 1:29 PM
  383. it does show they couldn't handle it
  384. alessandronlYesterday at 1:29 PM
  385. intresting while it lastedt
  386. KrolonYesterday at 1:29 PM
  387. all the time you didn't mention China which isn't doing bad in its current form
  388. but it's communism is questionable
  389. alessandronlYesterday at 1:30 PM
  390. it ist doing bad but not great eather so
  391. KrolonYesterday at 1:51 PM
  392. wait... wow... did you ban pax?
  393. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 1:53 PM
  394. Disagreeing is one thing but shit like No, no, let him keep claiming that starvation is a capitalist problem, this is funny. get's you kicked or banned
  395. Manny got kicked earlier for the same reason
  396. KrolonYesterday at 1:54 PM
  397. what for? doesn't seem blatantly offensive
  398. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 1:54 PM
  399. If you're ridiculing the other party you're arguing in bad faith
  400. And yes, I'm definitely gonna count that sorta thing as an insult
  401. In Pax's case he's been making me wanna ban him since pretty much the first time we talked, so he was on thinner ice than most
  402. KrolonYesterday at 1:56 PM
  403. so banning people relies on your opinion and nor rules
  404. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 1:56 PM
  405. 2) No insulting each other
  406. If it was just a matter of having an opinion I don't agree with you'd be gone too
  407. But like I said, it's one thing to disagree so long as you do it in a semi-civil manner
  408. KrolonYesterday at 1:57 PM
  409. gtfo goodbye didn't seem hella civil
  410. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 1:58 PM
  411. It wasn't supposed to be
  412. But it's not an insult
  413. That's what counts
  414. KrolonYesterday at 2:00 PM
  415. "let him keep claiming that starvation is a capitalist problem" also didn't seem like an insult
  416. N7HuntsmanYesterday at 2:00 PM
  417. Not a personal one, certainly.
  418. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 2:00 PM
  419. Now you're just ignoring the context of that quote
  420. If you're writing something like that, you're ridiculing the guy you're talking to
  421. That is an insult
  422. And that is all there is to say about it
  423. Dude's banned, he's staying that way, what you do with that is your decision
  424. N7HuntsmanYesterday at 2:05 PM
  425. Krolon, there is literally nothing to be said that isn't wasting your breath. NIA is, if we're being frank, rather abrasive at best. Let's just move on, shall we?
  426. KrolonYesterday at 2:05 PM
  427. so... I'm insulting too if I protect such a group localised non vulgar joke
  428.  
  429. what I'll do is just cut my activity because apparently it's simply not worth it if a simple rage induced by politic chat can lead to ban
  430. also Manny's case
  431. he is the way he his but it started to matter only since he joined chat and he was pretty active person
  432. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 2:08 PM
  433. Manny's not banned
  434. KrolonYesterday at 2:09 PM
  435. my mistake
  436. zozilinYesterday at 2:09 PM
  437. Is he not?
  438. NoImageAvailableYesterday at 2:09 PM
  439. I kicked him when he started trolling the discussion but he can always rejoin
  440. Specifically because I know he's normally a decent contributor
RAW Paste Data
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy. OK, I Understand
Top