What I do NOT support is the notion that a portion of MY income should be TAKEN FROM ME and used to support those who opt to do nothing. I would have no problem with it being made OPTIONAL, and donating in a charitable fashion. I merely object to being strong-armed to pay for someone else's lifestyle.
> We also know that a segment of the population, given the option to do nothing WILL DO NOTHING. Do we actually know that? I think it's good of them to try it out in small scale just to be sure.
As to the 'people given the option WILL DO NOTHING' - well that's 100% provable lie. We don't need the study to know this.
If it's a "100%" provable "lie", then PROVE IT.
What I SAID was "a segment of the population". Not "Everyone".
As evidence I can drum up instances of multi-generational welfare families here in the US.
I wouldn't be able to do this if it was a "100% provable lie.".
No, it's that shitty situations happen to everyone. It's incumbent on THEM to lift THEMSELVES out. Having the government mandate that their employers give them a hand-out simply disincentivizes people from actually trying to better their own situation.
Because, when given an ACTUAL choice, most people are lazy and will just take the hand-out.
1: Not everyone needs to go to college and get a degree. There are numerous skilled jobs out there that require no college whatsoever. 2: Many of the no-skill, minimum wage jobs are slowly being phased out in favor of AUTOMATION. 3: Those no-skill, minimum wage jobs that remain are going to be the sort that are done on a temporary basis. Not something that requires a full-time position, nor something one could make a career out of.
I'm not sure where people lost the concept of making oneself more valuable on the job market. But it's distorted the jobs market into something unsustainable long-term.
This is not an "You think" or "I think". These are FACTS.
No-skill, minimum wage jobs are not, and NEVER WERE intended to be a lifetime "career".
That's not FEELINGS. That's FACT.
End of story.
It's like skipping school to go swimming in sewage treatment ponds. Then bitching because society doesn't subsidize your lifestyle.
It's not society's fault these people have either zero skills or zero ambition...
Hell, you have places like McDonalds where, yes, the initial pay SUCKS. But they provide you with opportunities to improve yourself in terms of employee value. Yet some dumbshits simply want to remain a fry cook for the rest of their lives. And you think they're somehow entitled not to be judged by society for being FAILURES?
Guess again child. Guess again.
Life is tough. Life is unfair. You either rise by your own hand, or you fail. Nobody OWES you ANYTHING. And be grateful for this bloated welfare state...Long ego, freedom meant that lazy people were free to STARVE to death (but for the charity of others).
Any time some dipshit tells you the Web's dying, just ask them what they think they're selling, and then cut them off and send them on their way. Like Jehovah's Witness door-to-door people.
Regardless of whether the person and the government official are both using the social media platform, they are still both subject to the whim of the platform provider. NEITHER are OWED service. And even if they insert themselves between the two parties, it's still THEIR platform, not a platform controlled by either of the two parties. 1A protections simply don't apply.
If you want a real-world analog.
Guy meets government official in a coffee shop. Owner of the coffee shop kicks the guy out because he's screaming profanity and hurling epithets, disrupting business. This inhibits his ability to communicate with the government official. But it's STILL not a 1A violation.
No. Because FB is a private entity. They're not the government.
As such, they're under NO legal compulsion to provide you with an unrestricted venue for airing your thoughts.
And FB isn't "enforcing the law". They're enforcing their "terms of service". Which they are free to set in any manner they see fit.
This being said, "Hate Speech" doesn't actually exist. And if it does, it exists under the purview of free speech. It's NOT illegal to hate someone and say so.
Also, most of these platforms provide AMPLE controls for blocking content if people don't wish to see it. But various people are too lazy. And then there's the authoritarians. Who DO want to control your speech and how you think. All these people are going to yammer at FB for "DO SOMETHING!" that they're ALREADY perfectly capable of doing FOR THEMSELVES.
Ultimately, they're going to figure out what the Founding Fathers understood intrinsically. You simply CANNOT control speech. All attempts eventually become too cumbersome and fail. Either by beating down the censors to the point where such things are abandoned. Or by simply diverting so much effort from running the company that it eventually causes the company to fold.
Slashdot Mirror
You simply disagreeing with an opening line of a book doesn't mean it's garbage.
Nor does it make his arguments INCORRECT.
And the money has to come from SOMEWHERE.
No it doesn't. Fiat currency can come from nowhere.
Proof that you have zero grasp of economics.
You cannot simply, endlessly, print money.
All of these studies have been done with relatively miniscule portions of a total population.
The problem isn't "It works in micro."
The problem is, logistically, it doesn't work at the macro level.
So you're saying we should reward people for being lazy, unemployable fucktards?
Yeah. NO!
Good news, no one is asking you to pay a dime. The government's paying for it.
Also, it's probably cheaper than putting down an insurrection, or dealing with the crime that people turn to to feed themselves
By reaching into his pocket and taking the fruits of HIS labor and calling it "taxes".
No. I support a person's right to do nothing.
What I do NOT support is the notion that a portion of MY income should be TAKEN FROM ME and used to support those who opt to do nothing.
I would have no problem with it being made OPTIONAL, and donating in a charitable fashion.
I merely object to being strong-armed to pay for someone else's lifestyle.
> We also know that a segment of the population, given the option to do nothing WILL DO NOTHING.
Do we actually know that?
I think it's good of them to try it out in small scale just to be sure.
As to the 'people given the option WILL DO NOTHING' - well that's 100% provable lie. We don't need the study to know this.
If it's a "100%" provable "lie", then PROVE IT.
What I SAID was "a segment of the population". Not "Everyone".
As evidence I can drum up instances of multi-generational welfare families here in the US.
I wouldn't be able to do this if it was a "100% provable lie.".
Ergo, thou art enunciating from thine own rectum.
Need I point out multiple instances of multi-generational welfare families here in the US?
Well, Brad would be the only one coming into the Senate that has already "cut the pork"...
But good luck getting past the felony and treason convictions.
Is that why it is the 6th largest economy in the world? I'll hang with the morons thank you very much.
No, that's because it's done it on the back of cheap labor by illegal immigrants.
Raised our taxes?
I dunno about YOU, but I'm going to see MORE back on my tax returns.
And I'm not some billionaire.
This program is neither universal or basic.
It's simply another welfare program.
And the money has to come from SOMEWHERE.
We also know that a segment of the population, given the option to do nothing WILL DO NOTHING.
So, all that's been created is an incentive not to achieve anything.
I simply don't have enough mod points for this post.
Sorry, but computers simply are NOT a trustworthy medium for something like this.
I LIKE computers. And I trust them to work as they're told.
I simply don't trust the assholes who're doing the telling. Nor that someone couldn't subvert them and become the assholes who're doing the telling...
No. They improve themselves to improve their own lives.
Meritocracy instead of kleptocracy.
The fuck it does.
You don't like working a shit job for shit money, improve yourself and get a better fucking job that pays more.
Why is the mere SUGGESTION of a meritocracy so scary to you people?
No, it's that shitty situations happen to everyone.
It's incumbent on THEM to lift THEMSELVES out.
Having the government mandate that their employers give them a hand-out simply disincentivizes people from actually trying to better their own situation.
Because, when given an ACTUAL choice, most people are lazy and will just take the hand-out.
No. They should show a bit of initiative and try to improve their lots in life by something OTHER than government-mandated handouts.
"What something is intended to be means nothing."
The fuck it does.
Part of the problem today is that everything will bend to their benefit. Jobs, language, etc.
In the really real world, that just isn't true.
1: Not everyone needs to go to college and get a degree. There are numerous skilled jobs out there that require no college whatsoever.
2: Many of the no-skill, minimum wage jobs are slowly being phased out in favor of AUTOMATION.
3: Those no-skill, minimum wage jobs that remain are going to be the sort that are done on a temporary basis. Not something that requires a full-time position, nor something one could make a career out of.
I'm not sure where people lost the concept of making oneself more valuable on the job market.
But it's distorted the jobs market into something unsustainable long-term.
This is not an "You think" or "I think". These are FACTS.
No-skill, minimum wage jobs are not, and NEVER WERE intended to be a lifetime "career".
That's not FEELINGS. That's FACT.
End of story.
It's like skipping school to go swimming in sewage treatment ponds. Then bitching because society doesn't subsidize your lifestyle.
It's not society's fault these people have either zero skills or zero ambition...
Hell, you have places like McDonalds where, yes, the initial pay SUCKS. But they provide you with opportunities to improve yourself in terms of employee value. Yet some dumbshits simply want to remain a fry cook for the rest of their lives. And you think they're somehow entitled not to be judged by society for being FAILURES?
Guess again child. Guess again.
Life is tough. Life is unfair.
You either rise by your own hand, or you fail. Nobody OWES you ANYTHING.
And be grateful for this bloated welfare state...Long ego, freedom meant that lazy people were free to STARVE to death (but for the charity of others).
Any time some dipshit tells you the Web's dying, just ask them what they think they're selling, and then cut them off and send them on their way. Like Jehovah's Witness door-to-door people.
Sorry, but you're incorrect.
Regardless of whether the person and the government official are both using the social media platform, they are still both subject to the whim of the platform provider. NEITHER are OWED service. And even if they insert themselves between the two parties, it's still THEIR platform, not a platform controlled by either of the two parties. 1A protections simply don't apply.
If you want a real-world analog.
Guy meets government official in a coffee shop.
Owner of the coffee shop kicks the guy out because he's screaming profanity and hurling epithets, disrupting business.
This inhibits his ability to communicate with the government official.
But it's STILL not a 1A violation.
No. Because FB is a private entity. They're not the government.
As such, they're under NO legal compulsion to provide you with an unrestricted venue for airing your thoughts.
And FB isn't "enforcing the law". They're enforcing their "terms of service". Which they are free to set in any manner they see fit.
This being said, "Hate Speech" doesn't actually exist. And if it does, it exists under the purview of free speech.
It's NOT illegal to hate someone and say so.
Also, most of these platforms provide AMPLE controls for blocking content if people don't wish to see it.
But various people are too lazy.
And then there's the authoritarians. Who DO want to control your speech and how you think.
All these people are going to yammer at FB for "DO SOMETHING!" that they're ALREADY perfectly capable of doing FOR THEMSELVES.
Ultimately, they're going to figure out what the Founding Fathers understood intrinsically.
You simply CANNOT control speech. All attempts eventually become too cumbersome and fail.
Either by beating down the censors to the point where such things are abandoned.
Or by simply diverting so much effort from running the company that it eventually causes the company to fold.
This kind of thing is inevitable when you try to police free speech.
Don't like it? Tough.
And if you can't step up and take responsibility for your own opinions, you simply don't hold them strongly enough.
No strength of conviction.