Guest_

guest_


— Guest_ Report User
ianism = Hegel, loli, aryanism? 3 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
Usually they aren’t familiar with his work beyond the broad similarities at the core of both nietzsche‘s existentialism and nihilism- both essentially hold there is no “greater power” or singular unifying rule of law or order to the human condition- but they come to different conclusions. nietzsche Can in essence on the braid subject be simplified to say that the purpose of life is that we give life purpose as opposed to the general passive nihilism which can be simplified to say that there is no purpose. The general nihilist philosophy can be said to be “do whatever you want since it all doesn’t matter..” where as nietzsche’s existentialism can be said to believe that since nothing matters one should do their best and through doing one’s best meaning is found. Vast oversimplifications but close enough for broad strokes.
ianism = Hegel, loli, aryanism? 3 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
Well- I suppose yes and no? nietzsche Was very vocal that he thought nihilism was bad for humanity and there is little of any debate in philosophy or history as to his feelings on the matter.
That said philosophy is at its core a search for truth, much the same that a scientist ultimately searches for truth. A scientist Can set out with a theory that light is a liquid and through their experiments they can disprove the thing that they believe- so it isn’t entirely inappropriate to use a philosophers work or statements in a manner inconsistent with their beliefs if one can make a case that their logic is actually proof or evidence of a different point than they intended entirely. That said- that generally isn’t what is done when nihilists or wannabe nihilists quote nietzsche.
She take my money… 5 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
I should add:
1. I still laughed at this though.
2. Kanye and Kim DID have a prenup as alluded to in the song.
3. Kim very likely could have sought and won spousal support aka alimony as he average earnings are reported at around $80 million but were lower earlier in their relationship and Kanye is reported to average at least $150 million annually. Most sources generally place her net worth lower than Kanye (pre divorce) but her earnings are reported as substantially lower. Despite this no spousal support was sought and most sources state it was a fairly “easy” settlement especially for a case between two people with such wealth and financially complexity. If she was a “true gold digger,” in this divorce she could have potentially taken him for hundreds of millions more dollars. Though as it stands their prenup entitles her to some very significant concessions.
2
She take my money… 5 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
$200k is a lot of money but let’s not forget that for ONE SAMPLE on ONE SONG, Sting makes $5,000 A DAY from Sean Combs. The couple has 4 kids- making the $50,000 per child in support less than the melody of an 80’s ballad is worth, and given Wests career and assets, not as insane as it may seem. While most people can raise 4 children on far less than $200k a year, child and spousal support are meant to care for those in separated families to a standard they are accustomed to. How much is the payments on the mansions Kim and Kanye live in? If they split rent/mortgage- how much do you think Kanye was paying in bills? I’ll give a clue from recent news stories about certain celebrities who paid $50,000 in a single month just on their water bills for the grounds and pools. So yes these people earn insane amounts and they spend extravagantly. They spent extravagantly when together too, so because he went crazy her and her kids should have to change their lifestyle and he gets to keep his?
1
She take my money… 5 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
Let’s not forget that while the man was egotistical and brash, the entire country was taken by surprised as the “through the wire guy” became increasingly erratic and extreme. Evidence suggests he has worsened in his mental illness over the years and while his wife probably had some idea before the rest of us, almost certainly she didn’t go into the marriage knowing he was an out of control fruit cake laced with hate and conspiracy theories.
So labeling her a gold digger for divorcing a man who is crazy and by most accounts abusive to those around him isn’t a good look. If she was only after his money she could have stayed with him and had access to more than $200k a month in support from him. She’s also pretty stinking rich herself as are her children’s grandparents. I find it dubious she even needs the support and more likely that the support is just as you say- to ensure Kanye contributes his equitable share to raising their children.
2
She take my money… 5 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
The only reason I could see you being downvoted is because someone out there projected personal circumstances onto this situation involving other people.
Yes, often times, at least in America, family courts can be biased against fathers/men due to antiquated gender ideas and women being seen as default “nurturers” and default infants that require protection and care. Often men are saddled with child support payments which are unreasonable and a touch arbitrary.
Those are separate issues of reform from the basic principle that as you say- he had fucking kids. So what, they divorced and now he gets to put any bill he doesn’t feel like paying on the mother and that divorce absolves him from equitable parenting or the concept of providing the best one is able for their children?
2
Hug yourself before you thug yourself 1 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
Indeed. The R Kelly case showed us as much.
1
Haha yes 12 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
Cost of living is a major issue but it goes beyond minimum wages. We need to look at the total picture and how it all fits together. Wealth disparity is in general larger and more prevalent than in modern history. Global demand is much higher as more and more nations have developed their standards of living. Service based economy has largely replaced production based labor forces in many major economies. Continuing increases to standards of living and minimum requirements for things like access to technology to function in society or meet environmental regulations further changes the picture from what it once was. So it’s a bigger issue and in general there isn’t strong evidence to support that a simple minimum earnings hike would have even a net positive impact on things.
Haha yes 12 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
The system doesn’t support it. It is really simple- if prices aren’t fixed or indexed, or if some sort of basic level needs are provided and the rest is “upgrades,” you can raise wages all you want but the market will just respond and things will tend to return to relatively the same point. There needs to be growth to support wages matching inflation and we are pushing the limits of resources in either or both terms of physical materials and/or what we can produce. You can’t have economies where most people produce no tangible value but everyone has access to tangible goods and prices stay indexed to cost of living- not under current economics.
Haha yes 12 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
Now- of everyone could live in a mc mansion with 5 cars and live that sort of life- that might be fine. But…. That’s not happening in the conceivable future. How much beach front property is there in south east Florida or Southern California or the Texas gulf etc? How many 100 acre ranches with fertile land and beautiful vistas and scenic mountains can exist in Montana? Not as many as there are people who want to have that life. There are only so many 2 bedroom homes with a medium yard and so forth. The people who want those things are still going to try and have them. Unless we convert to some sort of lottery or turns based system or something where instead of how much you’ll pay we allocate things people want on random number tickets or something.
Haha yes 12 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
As long as someone wants more they will work to get more- if minimum wage is $250k a year or $50k a year do you think people making that much now would just be happy and ok to suddenly make as much as minimum wage? If working at Walmart pays as much as being a dentist why would people go hundreds of thousands in debt and spend all the time studying and deal with the stress and liabilities of the job when they could go do something else for the same? People with money are just always going to find a way to make more than you. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be people with money, they’d just be average people with the same cars and the same house and the same food and the same vacations as everyone else.
Haha yes 12 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
Economics can be complex. Let’s keep it simple. Could you quit your job tomorrow and never work again and have enough money to pay your bills and do everything you want and be comfortable in financial crises or retirement? Do you only do your job because you enjoy it? Probably not. Why do you work? Because you need money. Now, if every job paid as much as the average CEO makes, and most people kept their same lifestyle- most people could work for maybe a decade or less and never work again. Retire in your 20’s in theory. If you had as much money as the “big boss” you probably wouldn’t work for them- they’d work for you if anything. If everyone is rich- no one is rich. That’s what makes most people go to work- their boss/company has more money than you and will trade you some of that money to work.
Haha yes 12 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
And if you are charging $4k a month for rent on a house, someone with a similar house in a similar location might be honest and principled but not terribly financially bright to charge much less since their nut is smaller. People usually don’t charge less if they can get more, and those that do usually run out of supply quickly because duh- if you can get the same thing for half or less the price then everyone looking will want that one right? And of a house is $4k then an apartment or condo etc. probably isn’t worth as much but can still command a premium- and if minimum wage is high then everyone knows that most anyone working full time can shoulder at least 30% of their income on housing.
Haha yes 12 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
But here is the problem- all the people making $100k are bidding against people who make $250k or some who make more or have wealth and equity to leverage. Their max bid isn’t $500k- maybe it is $1 million. Homes then move above the price you can afford on minimum wage.
As less people can afford homes the demand for rentals increases and asides being homeless, if you have no one to live with- you have to rent if you can’t buy. Rents tend to go up. When houses sell for $400k or more over asking- if you paid $250 or $500 for the house and it’s almost a million now- many will sell because you can move and get a comprable house somewhere else and pocket the rest. But when you paid a million for a house- your mortgage is much higher and where applicable property tax and insurance are higher than a home for $250k- by a lot. So if you rent that property- you must charge a higher rent- and that rent must be charged for as long as you hold the mortgage unless you sell before then.
Haha yes 12 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
You may not have a choice. In a competitive real wastage market there generally aren’t issues filling vacancies or selling homes. In a market like many major cities, a home costs 20+ years of 100% the annual average wage- and people buy at those prices which is what supports them. Lots of demand, limited supply that isn’t easily grown. Now let’s say minimum wage is $100k a year. Lots of people will qualify to buy a $500k home. In a market where homes are $200k on average- anyone can fairly easily buy a home. So people will. As the market is flooded holes begin to be bid on- you offer $200k and someone offers $250 and if someone REALLY wants the home they offer the maximum $500k they can get a loan for. When that home sells for $500k it signals the market to increase asking price which tends to increase bid price.
Haha yes 12 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
So inflation will happen fairly independently of wages, but raising wages can and usually will lead to inflation. That isn’t to say that wages should not be raised ever- but it isn’t so simple as to say “let’s just raise wages and fix things!” We can look at places where the minimum wage is far above $7.25. In parts of California minimum hourly wage is above $20 an hour, and in most of the state it is $15+. Washington DC has a minimum wage over $16 hourly. Look at housing prices and other cost of living markers in those areas- despite raising minimum wage the costs in those markets are generally astronomically higher than most other markets.
If you’re a land lord and you know anyone trying to rent who has a full time job makes at least $20 an hour- aren’t you likely to charge accordingly?
Haha yes 12 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
Raising interest rates can help deflate the economy because when loans are hard to get it helps cap prices. At .2% interest people with money will tend to buy houses and cars and large things because they have access to the money and at a low cost. At 30% people will generally avoid things they can’t buy with cash on hand. The value of money increases, the supply chain has less demand on it, inflation tends to decrease. If you act too aggressively or foolishly to combat inflation- you can cause a recession or depression. If mishandled that can cause a “death spiral” where lack of funds makes creating wealth and jobs and such difficult and it is hard to get out of that place.
Haha yes 12 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
So let’s take an economy where people have plenty of money- everyone is able to pay for decent living and save 30% of their income comfortably. There would be plenty of surplus cash- you could easily buy almost anything you wanted- and if you have that surplus of money there isn’t much you’re buying right? So what would you do with more money? If I offered you ten thousand dollars and you have $250k in the bank and nothing to spend it on- what’s $10k? Is it worth it? Of course when people start to mass money- people tend to start buying things, and when lots of people have lots of money and start buying things- demand surges which can drive inflation, and surging demand can also tax supplies which drives inflation. With all that commerce people tend to spend money on dealing- buying to resell, amassing investments etc.
Haha yes 12 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
Well yes. If you don’t increase pay, prices will still go up due to other economic factors, increasing pay just tends to also increase prices. In fact when inflation is very high, increasing pay can lead to even greater inflation- a major cause of inflation is when supply can’t keep up with demand. When people have more money that tends to drive up demand- which tends to drive up inflation in most cases. So if you have lots of supply but still lots of demand- inflation. If you have demand but supplies are restricted- inflation. If you have ample supply and equal demand you can still get inflation because the demand for money can fall. For example- if you feel that what you have is not worth the market value or that you simply don’t have the prophet incentive for commerce- money isn’t worth it to you.
· Edited 1 year ago
Why would a communist dictatorship do this? 3 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
In the broad sense greed and division of labels can be said to be behind many of the troubles Cuba and its people faced in the 20th century. Neither communist nor capitalist powers were terribly content to just let any nation of resources or strategic importance “decide for itself” without interference how it would self govern, and even before communism and capitalism were the prevailing forces in global politics, the exploitation of nations by those with the power to do so was the general way of the world. Cuba found itself in a position many smaller less developed or powerful nations have faced- foreign eyes turned to what they could get and set about getting it.
Why would a communist dictatorship do this? 3 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
Some people did very well under Batista and most people did not do so well. Some people did very well under Castro and most people did not do so well. The ideologies of communism or capitalism ultimately don’t factor in to the daily lives of people living in a brutal totalitarian regime under harsh conditions. Does it matter if your loved one was taken away and tortured and killed for speaking out against leaders taking money from foreign powers at the expense of the people or leaders taking money from the people for their benefit? Ultimately both regimes did not take kindly to those who opposed or spoke poorly of the leadership and both regimes held these same policies to those who spoke poorly of their foreign backers. You think in Castros Cuba one could freely denounce soviet communism?
Why would a communist dictatorship do this? 3 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
A vast oversimplification. Fulgencio Batista was backed by the US government and was integral in the exploitation of Cuba and its people for his personal gains. He was overthrown by multiple groups discontent with his policies and deeds, and one of those groups was lead by Fidel Castro who came into power after Batista. Batista had become a military dictator and instituted censorship, secret police, torture, harassment and other means to exert control through force. He was replaced by a dictator who did the same. Castro and Batista were two sides of the same coin- Batista can be said to have been used or useful to foreign powers and saw those foreign powers as a means to keep and benefit from his position. Castro can be said to have been used or useful to foreign powers and saw those foreign powers as a means to keep and benefit from his position.
Democracy is dope 2 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
So it isn’t so simple as to declare yourself a state. Minimum requirement would be the support of congress, and likely the standing president, but you’d also likely need popular public support to gain and keep support from the representative government. Usually you need to become a U.S. territory first, which has certain disadvantages in control and autonomy and would at least short term work contrary to the plan to gain control as you’d be seeding control to the US government who could ultimate never grant statehood. Puerto Rico has been a US territory for over 50 years and is not a state, at times not wanting statehood and at times wanting it but being refused it. Which is the other potential hurdle- statehood can take decades or more to be granted even if it eventually is. So you need to get and keep public and majority congress and executive support for likely decades in order to become a U.S. state. Ultimately though congress decides.
1
Democracy is dope 2 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
They cannot legally stop what? You can declare what you like but it doesn’t make it true. Congress has the power to grant statehood but no obligation to do. Other than a couple line prohibiting congress from unilaterally making states out of existing ones, there aren’t really any hard rules. Historically congress has had requirements when adding states, they have generally required things like some sort of evidence (like vote results in a recognized ballot) showing the majority of people of the territory want to be states, and usually the territory needs to adopt government and law compatible to the US constitution before it can become a state. There may be any number of additional stipulations and even if all stipulations are met congress can still decide not to grant statehood when they vote- and of course the president generally maintains broad veto powers over congress under the constitution so historically the motion is presented to the president for approval.
2
It is possible, see? 6 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
It is not without hardship to do so, but I can. What might assist in doing such a task is a dictionary, but I am without any aid so will do what I can.
2 · Edited 1 year ago