Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

how can one person be so incorrect

touchë

[Yoink]

Oh lawd I am just wired all wrong for social interaction.
Somebody gimme a chill pill, stat.

[Egan_BW]

Chillax, man. Don't sweat it, you're super handsome and people like you~

[Kagus]

Sponsored article popped up on Facebook. Normally I just ignore these things, but this one looked so batshit that I had to know more.

"Has our democracy died along with capitalism?"

Whuh

"The USA and the rest of the world hasn't had true capitalism for decades"

Uh?


So the basis of this is that capitalism is about risk. In order to make big bucks, you need to make big risks. And with how those goddamn financial elite (no really, the article mentions the "financial elite" multiple times and clearly labels them as the enemies of... Capitalism) have made themselves buddy-buddy with politicians and arranged all sorts of expense cuts and bailouts paid by the taxpayer's tab, the rich are no longer really risking anything in order to get richer, and therefore =/= capitalism.

Then the article takes a pointed attack against these goddamn financial elite richboys who control 50% of the world's resources, with their lobbying for renewable green energy and the CO2 lie and... wait... what?

Yeah, so, the enemy is in fact such megarich sneaks like Big Wind (which is still just a really funny name to me) who are manipulating the world into buying their infrastructure based on the massive marketing campaign that is global warming and "The CO2 Deception".

France, for example, is on the brink of destruction thanks to these financial elite schemes of green energy and multicultural integration and- oh, there it is. Yep. It's those gosh-darned immigrants again. They just get everywhere, don't they? Showing up in arguments where you never would have expected them to be.

Also the banks are just giving out loans willy-nilly, and if you can't pay back that loan then it's the bank who has to take the fall, which is why capitalism has failed. Because if the bank runs out of money then the government will just patch them back up again, so there's no risk. If bank bailouts didn't exist, then banks would have to start evaluating risk on loan prospects, which clearly isn't happening now and therefore it's not capitalism. And without capitalism, democracy falls as well (we are, in fact, living in something called a social dictatorship right now).


And then there's a random picture of a Tesla emergency-charging itself on the side of a road, apparently as an example of how green energy is a scam.


Here's a link to the article in case you feel like giving the loonies more clicks and translating the page from Norwegian.

I admit, it was wrong of me to give them the attention, not to mention sharing the wealth link, but staring at stuff like this is a guilty pleasure.

[TD1]

Wait, what was wrong with it?

[methylatedspirit]

So, the article relies on tens of disjointed assumptions that, through some 'creative' interpretation, are glued together into "arguments" by immersing them in what appears to be hot glue? And they want these arguments to be tossed into a black box to produce the statement, "Our democracy died along with capitalism" as output?
The more I try to make sense of it, the more ill-defined the output statement(s).

[Kagus]

So, the article relies on tens of disjointed assumptions that, through some 'creative' interpretation, are glued together into "arguments" by immersing them in what appears to be hot glue? And they want these arguments to be tossed into a black box to produce the statement, "Our democracy died along with capitalism" as output?
The more I try to make sense of it, the more ill-defined the output statement(s).

It's quite simple, really:

• The financial elite are a corrupt conglomerate of green energy moguls, who grow rich by manipulating politicians into giving them concessions paid for by taxpayers.
• This results in bank bailouts, which makes banks carefree and anti-capitalist, causing them to hand out loans without risk assessment and requiring more bailouts as a result.
• The large government spending on banks results in sucking money out of the non-elite, resulting in poverty.
• We need to stop renewable energy movements in order to revive capitalism, and thereby democracy.
• Immigrants.

Wait, what was wrong with it?

"Any attention is good attention" and all that... It's obviously a ragebait article that is intended to spread as far as possible, and by reading and mentioning it I'm helping to spread it.

[methylatedspirit]

I don't engage much in politics, but would it be safe to say that 'immigrants' is a Godwin-type concept? In the sense that, once mentioned in an otherwise unrelated debate, whoever said it has lost the debate because of the topic's tendency to derail the debate.

[pisskop]

Immigrants are a major source of strife; especially in places like france.  There is valid concern over the failed assimilation of immigrants.

[Tack]

Yeah apparently France didn't handle the refugees so well.

But at least they tried I guess.

[Trekkin]

I don't engage much in politics, but would it be safe to say that 'immigrants' is a Godwin-type concept? In the sense that, once mentioned in an otherwise unrelated debate, whoever said it has lost the debate because of the topic's tendency to derail the debate.

I'd say so, bearing in mind that Godwin's Law has become one itself; anyone trying to declare victory in a debate isn't worth debating.

[scriver]

I don't engage much in politics, but would it be safe to say that 'immigrants' is a Godwin-type concept? In the sense that, once mentioned in an otherwise unrelated debate, whoever said it has lost the debate because of the topic's tendency to derail the debate.

It could potentially be if you're the kind of person who thinks any kind of criticism of migration policies is wrong, I suppose.

[Kagus]

The trick, of course, is to separate the ones bringing up legitimate arguments about the problems of integration from the ones who just blame everything on the brown people.

Spoiler: Fig. 1 (click to show/hide)

The "revive capitalism" article directly says that France is failing not because it failed to integrate migrants, it says that they're failing because they attempted to integrate migrants.

France is on its way towards poverty thanks to foreign culture immigration and bad energy politics (green)

It's worth noting that this quote comes completely out of left field, and immigration is not mentioned again. The context goes:

• The financial elite are using the UN's CO2 scam to seize wealth and political power
• More and more people in France are unhappy with the elite's destruction of their country the past decades
• France is headed for poverty because of renewable energy and immigrants

After that it goes on to say how the financial elite are best described as "Globalists", and how organizations such as the UN, EU and IMF are constructed to give the financial elite more power. The next couple sentences mention that The Debt Is Too Damn High, and how it's uncertain how high debt can even go. The closing statement is "We're quickly approaching a turning point one way or another".

Then there's a footnote wrapping the whole thing up by inviting you to learn more about macroeconomics, providing a link. ...to another article on their own website.

[scriver]

After that it goes on to say how the financial elite are best described as "Globalists", and how organizations such as the UN, EU and IMF are constructed to give the financial elite more power.

These parts are hardly untrue, though, apart from maybe the UN. See the EU abusing it's trade power to keep neo-colonialism going in Africa, and the IMF likewise abusing their power to make sure third world countries are not able to profit from their own resources but that profits instead go to American and European companies. Globalism is just the flip side (of the pro-life/pro-choice PR situation) of neocolonialism.

The writer's main problems seems to be the assumption that this is the consequence of a lack of capitalism rather than a consequence of capitalism in itself. They seem to view liberalism as left-wing rather than the right-wing ideology it is.

[Kagus]

The writer's main problems seems to be the assumption that this is the consequence of a lack of capitalism rather than a consequence of capitalism in itself.

This is kinda the crux of it. "Capitalism is dead, we need more capitalism in order to fix the capitalism that we don't have".


Except it doesn't really even say that... The conclusion just states "Something is probably going to happen at some point", which could very well be true.