This thread gave me the impression that people drove him away. The kind of person to cheer someone leaving is the kind of person to do that. Of course they should say it when they think he's saying something dumb.
Didn't sound like it, but maybe you're just not very bright. And the point would stand regardless.
If you weren't scared of words, you wouldn't be cheering someone leaving the board.
At first, I was confusing him with another guy, but now I sort of do remember him because I had a few interactions with him. That said, while he was no fan of me [/Trump], I don't approve of giving people hate or driving them off a forum.
There are many more objectively retarded people here.
Not really, so many different names in there that I can barely follow it.
Seems that this guy's argument is "because it's Valve, the fact that X is normally a red flag doesn't matter". I don't see how you can pretend that disagreeing with that is an 'objectively bad take'.
There are better ways to raise the possibility that you might be paranoid and mentally ill than this.
Lethn rarely missed an opportunity to criticize the right in any thread that was critical of the left - which is most of the threads here - and I rarely failed to point out thos compulsion. So you’re either blind or dishonest, and we know which one it is.
Everyone who doesn't agree with current_horror is either blind or dishonest.
I don't care about Speed Tree either way, don't even know what it is.
thanks Dom for feeding his ego by stickying it for years
To paraphrase Taleb, the worst of the producers is superior to the best of the critics.
Politics? Only his enlightened "The Right Wing is worse than the Left because they annoy me more" take was allowed.
Never saw that. However, now that I remember who he was, he did get annoyed by me because I argued that women aren't as bad as he claimed they were.
Arrogance may be off-putting, but then again, so is being stubborn as a mule, don't you think?
He was also a big believer in that a different .win community (ConPro I think) was going around and downvoting/trolling him anytime he got disagreement. Because only that could be the reason anyone disagreed with him on anything.
Sounds like the Imp, but I've witnessed that firsthand.
Sounds like not a bad take but rather an opinion with which you didn't agree.
Why the cheering that he deleted his accounts, and suggestions it was for 'opsec'?
That is not a bad take, that is just something with which you disagree.
Wait, is this the creature who was 'murdered by police'?
What were his 'bad takes'? Name sounds vaguely familiar but would ring a bell if he had some bad takes.
Easy. Don't allow people in positions of power that put ethnic loyalty over national loyalty.
And how do you test people to see if they put ethnic loyalty above something else?
THE bastion? We both know that that's not true.
The bastion as the GOP has at least some anti-establishment voices.
The holocaust card is Israels preferred defense.
You moved the goalposts. We'll get to Israel if you want, but you were claiming that any criticism of Judaism is compared to the Holocaust.
Guess you won't give Islam the same courtesy. And before you retort with the Quran let's not forget the Talmud. But not to discriminate the First Testament is also very nice.
I give Islam the same courtesy as Judaism: to judge them by their behavior.
The opening of the gates of Toledo was also just a response to the mean treatment by the Spanish. Just like Blacks only act they way they do because of slavery.
No, probably just because most areas in Spain reached accommodation with the invaders rather than be devastated. The same thing happened in Egypt and other places... where this grave mistake actually was the result of Byzantine persecution of Monophysites.
I disagree, you can be rich through inheritance. Often some of the worst, laziest people in the world. Point taken though, I only talked about what the words mean for the poor as opposed to the rich as well.
The rich who are deserving, in my view, are those who provide actually useful goods and services. Even something like Tesla would count, but not Facebook. Just my own arbitrary judgments.
I understand that you don't oppose voluntary charity. I don't like to strawman people as "OMG YOU LOVE TO SEE PEOPLE STARVE". But just to give you an example, I just scrolled through Twitter and one of the conservatives I follow was raising money to end medical debt. Very good, and voluntary charity as you call it, but one of the few blessings of living in Europe is that we don't have such a thing.
Good question. Let me cite a comment I just pointed.
I'd define it the way people in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period did. They made a sharp distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor, the latter being poor due to their own laziness and misbehavior, the former due to no fault of their own.
There's a huge number of questions before an accurate answer can be given, and you horribly skewed the question, but the answer is generally "yes".
The question was horribly skewed, by design. I'm trying to probe if you think any attempt to help the deserving poor at the expense of the undeserving rich is by definition bad.
You phrase it as $10, but we're realistically talking $3500 per year, because feeding the guy for just one day is useless. Are we also giving him housing? Medical care? Clothing? Where do we stop? Long's UBI plan, if it were inflation-adjusted, would mean giving him $46000 per year annually.
It's just an example. Suppose feeding him for the day would enable him to go to work and actually support himself. I didn't ask as a policy proposal, just to figure out where you draw the line, if you do.
What makes the poor man "deserving", and what makes the billionaire's money undeserved? Or rather, who decides what "deserving" and "undeserving" is?
I'd define it the way people in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period did. They made a sharp distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor, the latter being poor due to their own laziness and misbehavior, the former due to no fault of their own.
Similarly, does the fact that Musk and Ellison made their money through providing useful goods and services make them more or less deserving of keeping it than someone like Buffet who made it playing the stock market or Zuckerberg, Paige and Brin who made it through selling ads?
There is a reason I like to use Zuckerberg as an example. What he provided, if you leave behind narrow economic definitions of value, has no value or even negative value, to individuals and to society. But he has extracted vast amounts of wealth from that society.
You do know the money you think is there isn't, right, and you have no sense of economics or scale? Go ahead, liquidate all of the assets of the 10 richest people in the US, and redistribute it evenly to everyone in the country. Do you know how much money everyone gets? Assuming that:
I am well aware of that. It wouldn't accomplish anything, and for those who actually provide useful stuff... would put an end to that. I'm not proposing to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
a) you actually recover all the money (which you won't because most of it is tied up in investments which will crater in value once you start "redistributing" it) and
I accept this, but I'll point out a technical point: a firesale leads to lower prices, but not to lower value. The value, and normally the price, of these instruments is based on estimates of long-term dividend yields and stock price increases.
everyone in the country gets a 1-time check for..... $4,423.51.
The economic damage done isn't even comparable to the "benefit".
How much are you personally willing to pay to someone you never met but who the government claims is more deserving of your money than you are? And at what point do you consider it theft? And who are you to tell other people when they should consider it theft?
It might be theft, but I find that a facile argument. We do need roads, we need security. This is not a motte and bailey fallacy. This actually brings me to my original point. If it is theft, it is not justified even for worthy goals.
We in Europe have far bigger problems. They take our money and send it to Ukraine and on immigrants. That is theft, because it's not spent on their own corrupt interests rather than that of the people.
If one specific ethnic group is vastly overrepresentated in causing certain problems, then it's not scapegoating to point it out. Like Blacks and violent crime. Or Gypsies and neighborhoods drowning in trash.
And then what? Blacks and violent crime has solutions. What is the solution for your Jew issue.
You are accusing me of blaming everything on "da jooz" while you're blaming everything on the Democrats.
Not at all. Democrats aren't even 'the guy behind the curtain'. They're just the bastion of elite and establishment interests.
Seemingly every criticism of Judaism is very close to the Holocaust
To whom? Hitchens, Harris, etc. all criticized Judaism and there was no such reaction. Do you have any examples where 'criticism of Judaism' is equated to the Holocaust?
Also why exactly is Holocaust denial illegal in many countries and will be punished with prison time?
You tell me what you want to suggest.
It is. How many rabbis should I dig up that openly state so?
Of the tens of thousands of rabbis? Quite a lot actually.
And as that behavior isn't being called out by the Jewish community at large it's not exactly surprising that some white people develop hate for Jews.
'White' hatred for Jews long preceded Jewish 'advocacy for white genocide'.
I don't know. Ask Hollywood. Or the current White House staff.
You don't know? You sure can't demonstrate your claims.
There is a large difference between an individual stealing to feed themselves (less of a fraction of theft than women getting abortions because of rape and not as birth control).
I'm aware. I'm just using that as an example. If it's 'theft' to take part of the money of a billionaire, does it became less wrong if that theft is done to feed people who would otherwise starve?
armed robbery by the state to give to whoever sociopathic bureaucrats deem "deserving" is not charity.
It's not charity, it's distributing goodies to their own supporters.
People that support using the state to rob people, to force others to "be charitable" rather than doing it themselves, do not actually have such altruistic motives
Of course not.
I know you're a eurofag so you don't understand american taxation - there are enough holes in the system that the middle class pays more taxes than the rich,
Sounds very much like the system here. There are few European countries where the marginal tax rate for the middle class isn't about 50% in income taxes alone.
Using government to control economics has never worked, and never will. It will always be corrupt, so the solution has always been keeping government as minimal as reasonably possible.
You say corruption like it's a bad thing. It's a good thing for the people who benefit from it. The fact that it doesn't work for you and me is immaterial to them.
I'm kidding of course.
Or maybe it wasn't an assassination attempt. It's not out of the question.
You'd think the failed attempts would discourage these retards.
It seems to just inspire copycats, or new attempts by the deep state, whichever you prefer.
Also, while I by no means advocate for any assassination, it's hard to look at the first retard and, if you are so inclined, think that you could do it better. The unthinkable became thinkable, particularly how blase the elites reacted to it.
It's such a shame that Trump provoked Warren to knock herself out of the race.
We're used to "everyone I don't like is Hitler". Now the Nazis say "everyone who isn't a Nazi is Stalin"... while ironically echoing his anti-semitism.
Wouldn't put it past folks like you.