Sponge2ChanBob 🧽Oct 7, 2021
UpholdTimMosleyYeah NFTs and Frank's Red Hot goldfish are really innovative and productive
- Oct 7, 2021
broken brain op
Oct 7, 2021·2 repliesmodern american conservatism does attract dumb people and incentivize them to hold intensely antisocial perspectives on collectivism -- but being a low IQ normiecon who is "selfish" and has "no empathy" is still preferable to the warped and harmful instantiators of performative empathy that populate the smug moralistic bourgeois american left
Oct 7, 2021correct
- Oct 7, 2021·2 replies
People go to college then make threads like this with their 80k debt from a s***ty school. College isn't good for society atp
Oct 7, 2021·1 replygabapentinmodern american conservatism does attract dumb people and incentivize them to hold intensely antisocial perspectives on collectivism -- but being a low IQ normiecon who is "selfish" and has "no empathy" is still preferable to the warped and harmful instantiators of performative empathy that populate the smug moralistic bourgeois american left
normie/"boomer" conservatism is typically based at its root in either political apathy or obsession over social norms rather than actual politics. this is the same phenomena that causes it to be so reactionary when things are disrupted, because the real basis of boomerism is basically that you should never have to think about, participate in, or otherwise care about "politics" outside of a local level. This is why it's so easy as well to galvanize them for things like war post-terrorist attack or whatever, because the galvanization comes from the disruption of their ability to be apathetic in their daily lives. People can s*** on this all the way but in truth boomerism isn't a political ideology, it's a way of life - which is why it carries so many contradictions and non-dogmatic behaviorisms. You aren't going to have to read 100k pages of theory and have vast debates online to understand boomerism. You're just gonna not care to begin with. Once you care outside the small overton window that localism allows normie conservatives to live in, you've already lost.
Oct 7, 2021·edited·2 replies0It's about productivity and innovation
None of your innovation would even work without the massively subsidized university and research systems, including the Internet itself which grew out of DARPAnet
Why would a private company even invest in basic science which fuels all the technological advancements? Which company is gonna fund physics research? Math research? Chemistry research?
Just think for a moment. Your lolbert retärdation has never existed and never will. Even the USA doesn't go that way.
- Oct 7, 2021·edited0
"Innovation by finding new ways to make profit over everything else?"
Yes.. yes.. you're starting to understand the profit motive
Profit motive is so great that it incentivizes companies to off-shore their labor to cheap workers in Asia rather than to automate at home because investing into automation is a longer-term commitment than just paying some Bangladeshi kid with small fingers to do the work and we have to report a profit for the next quarter so our stock doesn't tank
Profit motive is so great that a cure of cancer is seen as bad because it would ruin pharma profits.
Profit motive is so great that the US has more empty homes than homeless people
Profit motive is so great that man-made climate change is threatening human existence.
- Oct 7, 20210
Holy s*** what are you even rambling about
He asked why capitalism incentivizes innovation
Shareholder capitalism sucks to a degree but that's why we have ESG initiatives to create stakeholder capitalism
Your stereotype regarding conservatives as a boogieman is hilarious btw, that was the whole reason I decided to troll your stupid thread
Stakeholder capitalism is the biggest f***ing cope I heard unless you mean literal worker co-ops
- Oct 7, 2021·2 replies0
Would I give 100 of the top entrepreneurs in our country $1B each to solve climate change, cancer, artificial intelligence, or other pressing world issues?
Or would I give the government $100B to spend it in a similar way?
That is the ideological difference
The 100th richest American owns 8 billion USD of capital
The richest one owns 200 billion USDWhat is stopping them from solving those problems then? Muh evil guberment?
- Oct 7, 2021·edited·2 repliesARCADE GOON· edited
None of your innovation would even work without the massively subsidized university and research systems, including the Internet itself which grew out of DARPAnet
Why would a private company even invest in basic science which fuels all the technological advancements? Which company is gonna fund physics research? Math research? Chemistry research?
Just think for a moment. Your lolbert retärdation has never existed and never will. Even the USA doesn't go that way.
the whole argument about "productivity" or "innovation" is a red herring, it's basically just a cope discussion all around. even the most popular AnCap writers, take Rothbard specifically, basically just said that the real goal of libertarianism is essentially indistinctive from amoral primitivism; at the core the actual architects of these ideologies don't care about any of this and the idea of "capitalism = innovation" is a post 1900s cope from american revisionist conservatives. Even original paleoconservatives never deluded themselves to think innovation or change mattered; not to say conservatism = luddites, but the idea that "innovation" somehow matters as a metric is a hilarious argument to see take root because all the architects of the ideologies which formed both liberartarianism and more basic paleoconservativism never gave a s*** about this facet of argument. conservatives who try to make this argument are getting their arguments from ben shapiro rather than the actual originators of the original ideology in question
edit: okay actually ayn rand made this argument and a lot of modern conservatism is influenced by her, but more seriously outside of her influence the others in that sphere never gave a s***
Oct 7, 20210It's about productivity and innovation
- Oct 7, 2021krishna bound
normie/"boomer" conservatism is typically based at its root in either political apathy or obsession over social norms rather than actual politics. this is the same phenomena that causes it to be so reactionary when things are disrupted, because the real basis of boomerism is basically that you should never have to think about, participate in, or otherwise care about "politics" outside of a local level. This is why it's so easy as well to galvanize them for things like war post-terrorist attack or whatever, because the galvanization comes from the disruption of their ability to be apathetic in their daily lives. People can s*** on this all the way but in truth boomerism isn't a political ideology, it's a way of life - which is why it carries so many contradictions and non-dogmatic behaviorisms. You aren't going to have to read 100k pages of theory and have vast debates online to understand boomerism. You're just gonna not care to begin with. Once you care outside the small overton window that localism allows normie conservatives to live in, you've already lost.
boomers have been Frank Ocean/Joe Rogan/CS Lewispilled for a fat minute
- Oct 7, 2021·1 replykrishna bound
the whole argument about "productivity" or "innovation" is a red herring, it's basically just a cope discussion all around. even the most popular AnCap writers, take Rothbard specifically, basically just said that the real goal of libertarianism is essentially indistinctive from amoral primitivism; at the core the actual architects of these ideologies don't care about any of this and the idea of "capitalism = innovation" is a post 1900s cope from american revisionist conservatives. Even original paleoconservatives never deluded themselves to think innovation or change mattered; not to say conservatism = luddites, but the idea that "innovation" somehow matters as a metric is a hilarious argument to see take root because all the architects of the ideologies which formed both liberartarianism and more basic paleoconservativism never gave a s*** about this facet of argument. conservatives who try to make this argument are getting their arguments from ben shapiro rather than the actual originators of the original ideology in question
edit: okay actually ayn rand made this argument and a lot of modern conservatism is influenced by her, but more seriously outside of her influence the others in that sphere never gave a s***
Basically "fuck you, I got mine" by selected people in the imperial core to the rest of the world and to the less-well off in their countries as well.
Oct 7, 2021UpholdTimMosley"Hurr I don't have to work with others and care about anyone other than myself f*** those brown people drop more bombs I love muh freedom and democracy"
Down terrible and I'm not nice about it. There's no point a conservative can make that holds any water, they are all myopic garbage takes that only impress profoundly ignorant people.
op having a nervous breakdown about people who don't know he exists lol
- Oct 7, 2021krishna bound
the whole argument about "productivity" or "innovation" is a red herring, it's basically just a cope discussion all around. even the most popular AnCap writers, take Rothbard specifically, basically just said that the real goal of libertarianism is essentially indistinctive from amoral primitivism; at the core the actual architects of these ideologies don't care about any of this and the idea of "capitalism = innovation" is a post 1900s cope from american revisionist conservatives. Even original paleoconservatives never deluded themselves to think innovation or change mattered; not to say conservatism = luddites, but the idea that "innovation" somehow matters as a metric is a hilarious argument to see take root because all the architects of the ideologies which formed both liberartarianism and more basic paleoconservativism never gave a s*** about this facet of argument. conservatives who try to make this argument are getting their arguments from ben shapiro rather than the actual originators of the original ideology in question
edit: okay actually ayn rand made this argument and a lot of modern conservatism is influenced by her, but more seriously outside of her influence the others in that sphere never gave a s***
Ayn Rand, famous novelist who lived off government welfare had no business talking about that s***.
It's funny how their political ideology is literally based off a fictional story. Lmao
- Oct 7, 2021·1 replyARCADE GOON
Basically "fuck you, I got mine" by selected people in the imperial core to the rest of the world and to the less-well off in their countries as well.
i'd say yes and no. on a textual level, people who influenced a lot of those thought spheres were definitely anti-imperialist but no doubt the context of what allowed (most of) them to have certain privileged thoughts was because they benefited from a lineage of western capitalist history. However, I'd say it's complicated when dissecting a lot of these older writers because many of them constantly fluctuate between essentially promoting a completely amoral anarchic world of near-primitive views vs defending a world created by a lineage of imperialism and capitalism. People like Rothbard basically answered things like "well who would build the roads" with "why would you need roads" for example, which spits in the face on people who argue for capitalism = innovation; the original consensus on innovation wasn't that it was a product of capitalism but rather a product of self-gain and served only to benefit those who had the same goals...not that far off from a Stirner-esque league of egoists or something of the sort. If it was up to a lot of AnCaps or lolbertarians or whatever, they'd really want to go back to an almost warring tribes era but globally - that's the real end-goal of the ideology. Everything about technology, innovation, etc is basically just post-Ayn Rand cope, she probably singe handedly did more damage to one side of the political spectrum than any form of reactionary behavior could have possibly ever wished to have
- Oct 7, 2021·1 replykrishna bound
i'd say yes and no. on a textual level, people who influenced a lot of those thought spheres were definitely anti-imperialist but no doubt the context of what allowed (most of) them to have certain privileged thoughts was because they benefited from a lineage of western capitalist history. However, I'd say it's complicated when dissecting a lot of these older writers because many of them constantly fluctuate between essentially promoting a completely amoral anarchic world of near-primitive views vs defending a world created by a lineage of imperialism and capitalism. People like Rothbard basically answered things like "well who would build the roads" with "why would you need roads" for example, which spits in the face on people who argue for capitalism = innovation; the original consensus on innovation wasn't that it was a product of capitalism but rather a product of self-gain and served only to benefit those who had the same goals...not that far off from a Stirner-esque league of egoists or something of the sort. If it was up to a lot of AnCaps or lolbertarians or whatever, they'd really want to go back to an almost warring tribes era but globally - that's the real end-goal of the ideology. Everything about technology, innovation, etc is basically just post-Ayn Rand cope, she probably singe handedly did more damage to one side of the political spectrum than any form of reactionary behavior could have possibly ever wished to have
Well it is obviously just a ex-post justification of their exploitation wrapped in some thin veneer of philosophy and ideological musings. There's a reason why these economists were f***ing nobodies in the 1920s and 1930s and not taken seriously up until the profit rate sank heavily due to the oil crisis and stagflation and people started picking them up again in the late 70s (= neoliberalism) when they had to steer away from right-Keynesianism
- Oct 7, 2021·1 replyARCADE GOON
Well it is obviously just a ex-post justification of their exploitation wrapped in some thin veneer of philosophy and ideological musings. There's a reason why these economists were f***ing nobodies in the 1920s and 1930s and not taken seriously up until the profit rate sank heavily due to the oil crisis and stagflation and people started picking them up again in the late 70s (= neoliberalism) when they had to steer away from right-Keynesianism
Sure, I basically agree with that, I'm more just saying that that a lot of "proud conservatives" that we see today basically have a warped view of their own ideology based on revisionism and don't even know how to correctly argue what their ideology stands for. Just more evidence that the strongest position a conservative can take on politics is to simply not care
Oct 7, 2021Is this a critique of conservatism itself or the populous rhetoric?
Oct 7, 2021·1 replyARCADE GOONNone of your innovation would even work without the massively subsidized university and research systems, including the Internet itself which grew out of DARPAnet
Why would a private company even invest in basic science which fuels all the technological advancements? Which company is gonna fund physics research? Math research? Chemistry research?
Just think for a moment. Your lolbert retärdation has never existed and never will. Even the USA doesn't go that way.
i remember when some user was hyped over tesla's new battery and was like "free market wins again"
even though they receive hundreds of millions in subsidies, regulatory benefits and incentives, received a half a billion dollar loan when they were starting off, etc.
the actual innovation their engineers are doing is valuable but you cant thank this idealized myth of the free market for it
- Oct 7, 2021·1 replykrishna bound
Sure, I basically agree with that, I'm more just saying that that a lot of "proud conservatives" that we see today basically have a warped view of their own ideology based on revisionism and don't even know how to correctly argue what their ideology stands for. Just more evidence that the strongest position a conservative can take on politics is to simply not care
Well, a conservative literally wants to conserve the status-quo and at best return to some glorified past that never existed.
For example, the Liberal Party of Germany (closest thing to lolberts and ancaps we have here) had the Freiburger Theses advocating for ordoliberalism:
Wikipedia:
Ordoliberal theory holds that the state must create a proper legal environment for the economy and maintain a healthy level of competition through measures that adhere to market principles. This is the foundation of its legitimacy. The concern is that, if the state does not take active measures to foster competition, firms with monopoly (or oligopoly) power will emerge, which will not only subvert the advantages offered by the market economy, but also possibly undermine good government, since strong economic power can be transformed into political power.
But that was decades ago. Nowadays, they are getting closer and closer to the lolbert retärdation that the USA has. Reading the old works of the people advocating for these ideologies shows me how much their argumentation skills have deteriorated and how far they have swayed from their own ideals. Ultimately, it is better for us leftists though. A dumb right will make things easier for us than a smart right. I fear someone like Tucker Carlson more for 2024 than some Ted Cruz type retärd.
- Oct 7, 2021Tkken
i remember when some user was hyped over tesla's new battery and was like "free market wins again"
even though they receive hundreds of millions in subsidies, regulatory benefits and incentives, received a half a billion dollar loan when they were starting off, etc.
the actual innovation their engineers are doing is valuable but you cant thank this idealized myth of the free market for it
Yeah, or SpaceX which can solely exist due to the US government subsidizing the s*** out of it for strategic reasons
- Oct 7, 2021·1 replyARCADE GOON
Well, a conservative literally wants to conserve the status-quo and at best return to some glorified past that never existed.
For example, the Liberal Party of Germany (closest thing to lolberts and ancaps we have here) had the Freiburger Theses advocating for ordoliberalism:
Wikipedia:
Ordoliberal theory holds that the state must create a proper legal environment for the economy and maintain a healthy level of competition through measures that adhere to market principles. This is the foundation of its legitimacy. The concern is that, if the state does not take active measures to foster competition, firms with monopoly (or oligopoly) power will emerge, which will not only subvert the advantages offered by the market economy, but also possibly undermine good government, since strong economic power can be transformed into political power.
But that was decades ago. Nowadays, they are getting closer and closer to the lolbert retärdation that the USA has. Reading the old works of the people advocating for these ideologies shows me how much their argumentation skills have deteriorated and how far they have swayed from their own ideals. Ultimately, it is better for us leftists though. A dumb right will make things easier for us than a smart right. I fear someone like Tucker Carlson more for 2024 than some Ted Cruz type retärd.
It depends on the group of conservatives but for the most part, yeah. I don't want to equate conservatives with all of RW stuff, but for the most part in terms of contemporary modern conservative ideology (which may as well be synonymous with popular RW ideals), yeah, sure. One thing i will note is that any (conservative) ideology which cares about the market at all has already lost. I argued about this in the conservatism thread when it first started and went back andn forth quite a bit. If your main concern in any way shape or form is maintaining an economic system or capitalist economics and yet you call yourself a conservatism you're f***ed, you're going to be a lolbertarian in a few decades and go from advocating 50s family kitsch to corporate intersectional idpol. Liberal market conservatism is just supporting the social statures of capital and as capital shifts to serve the most exploitable social norms over time, the norms the ideology claims to care about are going to shift the same way in turn. It's a dead end ideology.
Skateboard J ★Oct 7, 20210It's about productivity and innovation
ok Elon :elon: