I wonder what it's like to be right about everything and be surrounded by idiots?

Might sound arrogant, but whatever. I experienced that growing up because out in the boonies the average IQ is probably around 90 and the average education level is less than finishing high school.

Undergrad and graduate school were way better since I was surrounded by people who were, if not at my level, at a comparable level. I was at a state school so everybody was minimally competent, but nobody was a superstar.

Now I'm working at a world class research institution and my boss is the first person I've ever met who I knew was smarter than me within 5 minutes, and I'm not confident that I'm smarter than anybody I work with.

Life is so much better being the dumbest person in the room than being the smartest person. It's miserable being the smartest person in the room, but being the dumbest means you've got people who can fix things you're having issues with, and as long as you're not presumptive they will still like you. When you're the smartest person in the room you're usually resented for it by a good portion of people under you, at least in my experience.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 18 2020 09:46am

I've already studied the background philosophies and histories for most of the theory involved. And again, it never works on a large scale.

At a small scale, plenty of things work. Even pure communism can and has worked throughout history. But you're talking primarily nomadic tribes where this was a thing. There's no form of anarchosocialism or anarchocommunism that functions to provide a supply chain that'll feed a city of 16 million people for instance. In the end, the city dwellers end up murdering the farmers who provide the food, then cry to the rest of the world for help because they start to starve.

I think part of what all these socialists, anarchists, and communists miss is that money has no intrinsic value. Money is destroyed (literally incinerated) by the federal reserve every single year to remove it from circulation and print newer bills with more "security features".

The dollar and pound were both meant to symbolize the value of a set weight of silver or gold. Rare resources that could be traded at set rates vs other goods. They, and the Euro, have evolved well past that to be representative in value between different goods, that is based on labor costs, supply costs, production costs, etc. The real problem is that it's kind of a mind-game that requires everyone play along, or it breaks down really fast. Eventually the pursuit of the dollar itself, rather than what it represents, becomes all consuming. So the person who stocks shelves at the Walmarts, or the person who provides the haircut, the finish carpenter who installs that new cabinetry and molding in that new apartment complex, they're all providing services and goods. The truck driver who's delivering the merchandise the stockers are stocking, the farmer who's growing the wheat and corn and rice and soy that are in virtually everything you eat, they're providing a good. Their time in producing the goods and services all have value, because your ability to acquire these things without making them yourself IS the value you're paying for. So when you run into a scenario like we're approaching now, or Venezuela hit a while back, and people simply don't have enough money, print more! Give a UBI! Sure! The problem is that the goods and services that that money is intended to represent hasn't changed in volume. So you've now just devalued your currency. Because the supply of toilet paper hasn't changed, nor has the demand, the toilet paper is now worth $1000, rather than $20. Because also you are giving the UBI, many may feel they're stable enough to simply quit the jobs that're lower paying, so they can go "live their lives" rather than dealing with this pathetic "supporting themselves" bullshit. Eventually, you run into a scenario where you've just completely wiped out both your production, AND the value of your currency. By attempting to philosophize the supply chain, you've just destroyed it, and nobody wants your money. You want toilet paper? Find somebody who has it and trade them something of equal value. A chicken or something. Because no matter how much money you offer them, they probably won't be able to replace that roll of toilet paper, OR buy the chicken with it.

Take a "purely democratic" business for example. Let's utilize a Walmart store, say a 150,000 square foot supercenter. So just borderline large enough to be a supercenter, but still a supercenter. You're talking 800-1000 employees total. The way things are handled now, that store is going to divvy up hours and duties the way that is best serving to the company. But you've now eliminated the central company. Okay, let's assume the supply chain is uneffected. Now, you have let's say 1000 people who are going to divvy up duties and hours. Now you all have to agree on what you're all going to do, and you're all going to make the same amount doing what you're going to do. How do you manage to even come up to a decision on duties before you all starve? Well, you take votes, right? The problem is, you've already determined you all get equal pay for duties. So what if the person pushing carts in the snow doesn't feel like they're being paid enough to do so? What if the stocker is tired and takes a nap? You've already agreed everyone receives the same pay, and they're working physically harder than the cashier. Why shouldn't they take it easy for a while? Meanwhile, the person who wanted to do accounting doesn't actually know wtf they're doing, so they're just kind of saying "yeah sure" to everything, and you either run out of money or merchandise.

Do you get where this is headed? We haven't even gotten to the violence aspect of when the vote goes against someone who says, "Nope, you cannot compel me to obey your orders" and goes apeshit. So how do you control them? The bottom line is, you can't without force. But to use force against them, you've already violated the philosophy of this so-called libertarian-socialism.

We can go at any level, government, business, whatever, and it's incredibly easy to tear it apart. It's difficult enough to manage to get people to actually work under capitalism, with the firm understanding that capitalism IS what has promoted innovation, medical advancement, technological advancement, health, longer lifespans, the ability to feed millions off a few hundred square miles of land, and so much more. It's also what has bred this faith in currencies that no longer have any realistic tie-in to anything of value, merely what we convince ourselves it's value is. Remove the capitalist aspect, and pretty soon you'll get your rations of rice, bread, butter, and sausage whether you like it or not, and if you say no, you'll get your ration of bullet. Because somebody will ALWAYS take charge when people start going hungry. Always.

THE FUTURE IS WHITE, THE FUTURE IS MALE.

so you’re saying some things never change *LAUGH OUT LOUD*

Ha

Had to laugh, but on a serious front, all indicators are pointing to the opposite.

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/us-gets-its-ass-handed-to-it-in-wargames-heres-a-24-billion-fix/

Seems the future is more likely to be yellow, at the current rate. Which is somewhat predicted. As interracial relationships became more and more the norm, a yellowish/brown tint would become the norm naturally over time based on numbers alone. But now we're closer than ever to a point where a military dictatorship may overstripe the rest of the world in raw military power. What happens when China no longer fears the US enough to continue putting up with Taiwan and South Korea?

Whiteness has always been an ethnicity based on exclusion. It Isn't So Much its own group as it is a group of people claiming to be apart from others. When the number of white people shrinks they include other groups to bulk up their numbers. Jews and Irish used to not be considered white. And we are in the process of potentially seeing whiteness expanded to Hispanics.

The number of white people can only go down because a half white half black person has historically only been considered black. So they've needed to expand the definition of few times

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 18 2020 10:34am

Plessy v Ferguson said an octoroon had one drop too many to be white, but that's not the case now!

Your critical theory nonsense really needs to give way to critical thought, friend.

First: Initially, neither "whites" nor "blacks" accepted half white half blacks. That's why the term mulatto originated. They were pariahs accepted by neither. You seem to hint that only "whites" have ever been racist, and that's 100% opposite the fact. Regardless of what your critical theory courses taught you. Just as whites were neither the only "slavers" nor the "first slavers" nor the "last slavers" nor even the "largest slave traders" and indeed, there were millions upon millions of white "slaves". All of that falls on others. I don't hate myself for my skin tone. It's something I can't control, and didn't choose. Anyone who WOULD judge me by that skin tone is a racist.

But forget history, we're talking now. When it comes to skintone, yellow-tinted brown has always been the predicted future. Both "black" and "white" are becoming less common. It turns out, in the modern age, people would rather just be with whoever they're attracted to who they share interests with. It seems mostly like racebaiters like you who make a person's skin color such an issue. For reasonable people, the natural gravitation will lead to a blending.

I mean, assuming China doesn't decide to conquer the world. That could lead to some severe problems of it's own.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on May 18 2020 10:52am