Again, it's almost like there's a relationship between the two things. This is not the same as saying they're the same thing, unless (again) you listen to right-wing media.
Should Intellectual Property exist?
- Thread starter Nick723
- Start date
- Status
Joij21
🔥Deny, Defend, Depose!🔥
The way I see it the Federation is essentially a cult and Starfleet is the inner sanctum whereby only the people on the ships actually contain the full egalitarian promises, without compromise, of the society. Think about it, they got daycares for the crew's children, cafes, bars, lounges, entertainment, etc. All self sufficient whereby each ship is essentially a miniature mobile colony of Starfleet.
The rest of the Federation and it's planets must therefore be the logistics and resource hubs of the entire Starfleet operation and has no further purpose other than this sole role. People must only be able to join the academy after attending a rigorous selection process via the compulsory education and university system whereby only the best, brightest, and most physically fit are chosen. A sort of standardized set of tests similar to the SATs must be prevalent throughout the Federation, but those who score lower can't get in and are instead assigned a specific variety of jobs they can choose for on site training on one's local planet based on your IQ & emotional intelligence + fitness score. Only the best get to go to the Academy and only the best out of the best get to graduate from there to enter Starfleet and enjoy all of its egalitarian privileges that are without limit unlike the rest of everyone else.
The rest of the Federation would work in a similar socialized payless way like Starfleet but would nevertheless only be able to take on jobs within their "job lot" that they were assigned after getting the form they would not get into the Academy (redoing the test for possible re-entry, if you failed in the actual academy, or just entry if you never got in the first time is possible at a later date but a fairness doctrine exists due to limited positions available in the fleet at any given time whereby youth fresh out of the compulsory education system gain primacy in acceptance decisions over reapplicants). For more dangerous jobs and to ethically reduce the work hours in certain around the clock sort of work, Data style android units and other automated robots fill in the gaps and enhance productivity (but never entirely replace for there is a provision in the Federation's constitution which mandates that machines cannot replace the full work of all sapient organic workers in order to protect the "dignity", "sanctity", and "community" building roles such jobs provide for organics nor hinder an organic's path for personal "growth and development" through "meaningful" work. The only exceptions are in roles whereby the work required is excessively dangerous or undignified whereby full automation is made necessary within "reason" and "reasonable oversight"). Some BS jobs, colloquially and less derogatorily referred to as "busywork", are made for particularly low scoring individuals and include such roles as public service (like cleaning public parks and spaces of litter) volunteer work (such as helping out in various care facilities) and custodial duties (janitorial work in Starfleet and Federation offices). Such jobs are prevented from being both fully as well as even partially automated so to ensure enough positions are always available for a "statistically expected" plethora of low scoring individuals in need of "character building" and improving "self esteem". This is a result of several nebulous phrasings of the term "organic dignity" scattered around several articles of the Federation's constitution whereby via constitutional precedent observed and followed by the High Courts it is assumed such phrasings imply the extension of the right of work to even the "most low scoring" and "vulnerable" of Federation citizens. Even if self esteem building methods or depressive treatments can not bring dignity to a particular organic for reasons either/both medical and mental, then after several mandatory counseling sessions one can apply and receive assisted euthanasia to guarantee one's right to "organic dignity".
Nevertheless free housing, free compulsory education, free compulsory university, free healthcare, free family planning, free childcare, free counseling, free food, free water, and free utilities & transport are guaranteed and constitutionally affirmed as your fundamental rights as a Federation citizen. The only compromise for this system in not getting into Starfleet is your inability to have 100% control over your career path, however the Federation government tries it's best to always ensure and constantly update one's "job lot" bracket to always take care that a variety of options career wise are nevertheless available (and also while a retake of the Academy test is unlikely to get you into the actual Academy over the youths you can specifically take it again for the sole purpose of increasing your scores and getting into a higher "job lot" bracket, you are also free to retake University courses again for free at any stage of your life to brush up on old skills or learn new one's before retaking the test)
Any demand within the system to properly redistribute the goods within for major stellar projects whereby the materials in question are highly experimental (therefore more finite) and/or precision equipment (also more finite) must be made en masse for repeated experimentation to accelerate scientific progress, whereby the system is unable to cope because of lack of monetary systems of valuation to enable prioritization. Then such tasks are to be outsourced to the Ferengi in exchange for extraction of lantium bars from Federation worlds along with additional interstellar diplomacy pacts to share the technological findings of such projects with them.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
But it is not a problem if there is no competition qua competition for market access. Hence the waiting in line thing.
I agree, it's all logistics. And the problem is capitalist logistics are dictated by the markets, which incentivize a particular relationship between publishers, authors, books, and consumers. At no point was I ever describing some fantasy utopia where things just work out because people are better. Things can only work out better because they are mechanically designed to do so.
For you, it would seem to always be a black or white problem. I have not been describing capitalism as the sole problem with all human existence nor even strictly deriding it as the cause of all human failures. I am analyzing it, materialistically, as it is and as it really relates to the world; a system, clamped down in saecula saeculorum, by the requirements of industrial civilization as ruled by the ownership class.
Really, there's no possible way to talk back to a capitalist who confidently declares the poor are all mortally flawed. In a way, he is completely right. In a capitalist system, money is mortally dire. To have no money is then to have a mortal flaw. To have to work to achieve financial security, that too is a flaw. And as all such flaws must be rectified, can only be rectified, by the individual initiative, the grit, and the will of they who have them, to redeem yourself in capitalism is to put your shoulder to the wheel, keep your head down, and work until your flaws are corrected.
Well, I don't subscribe to that point of view. I know my history and I know that, once, it was believed that peasants did not produce art because they lacked an artistic spark. They lacked one of the many various and distinct virtues of a superior class of person, whose superiority was well-evidenced by the fact they lived in bigger houses, ate nicer food, wore nicer clothes, and could read and write. I know that these notions were believed by people for thousands of years.
And I also know that many such societies who could not get over this idea, would eventually have their lunch eaten, if not their entire society destroyed and transformed, by societies that found other ways to put most of the "no good population" to work, and overturn the formerly-held way of things.
It's simple, really. Capitalism makes it so some people who could create, can't, because they have no time to do so, because their time all must be sold to make a living. Under socialism, that person has significantly more of their own time free to spend on projects like writing. Bada bing, bada boom. I've just added a whole bunch more writers to the pile. Capitalism can't do that, no matter how many middle class pigs you give the opportunity to publish on Amazon Books.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,873
I completely agree with Crezth’s post. I also want to add that writing (and art more broadly) isn’t simply a function of talent -> quality, like all skills being able to practice said skills can improve a person’s abilities. I would wager that most Amazon authors have jobs outside of work that occupy their time that they could be using to improve their craft instead. Without capitalism robbing their time, many of them would be able to share higher quality works.
Bestbank Tiger
Deity
Not even remotely self aware.
Irrational Wiki says Hunter Biden is a convenient scapegoat for right wing conspiracy theories about family corruption. Objective reality says his laptop is real.
Irrational Wiki says the vaccine is safe and effective and right wing fear mongering is the only claim to the contrary. Objective reality says there have been plenty of breakthrough cases.
The page literally covers them not being right all the time.
Suffice it to say, you choosing to not evaluate sources because you've decided the source is bunk is entirely your choice (everyone does this), but you can no longer claim no sources have been provided. You would have to actually engage with the sources provided on their own merits to go any further.
Joij21
🔥Deny, Defend, Depose!🔥
Your completely misconstruing what I said. You make it seem as though I was excluding the rich here and talking exclusively about how only the poor are mortally flawed.
Both poor AND RICH are mortally flawed (it's the human condition) and most rich people would suck at writing books too. Many bad quality books on Amazon probably are written by nepobabies and whatnot!
Alright if that's what you're arguing, you just want an even bigger pool of books by freeing up work time through ending frivolous unnecessary jobs and the time scarcity limitations on free time they impose which Capitalism creates. Fine! I'll let you win that one.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,873
So true bestie, the Covid-19 vaccine made me a trans communist vampire who hungers for oestrogen mixed with blood!!!
Also ShoeOnHead is the second coming of Marx.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Well, OK! I'm glad we could clear that up.
Bestbank Tiger
Deity
Your fallacies are reductio ad absurdium and strawman.
It's an objective fact that the jab doesn't work.
Edmund Ironside
White Rabbit Object
My problem with Rational wiki is that it is an answer to a problem we already have answer for, and instead has just created a new problem. Rational wiki was set up in a response to Conservapedia being a smoking pile of biased unreliable garbage. However we already had an answer to that problem, and it is called Wikipedia! So you have Conservapedia which was set up in response to Wikipedia's supposed left wing bias, and now you have Rationalwiki trying to do the job of Wikipedia, but doing it much less well. For Rationalwiki has the same problems as Conservapedia, in that it is an echochamber and is prone to issues such as confirmation bias. On the one side you have Conservapedia with a very strong fundamentalist Christian right wing bias, and on the otherside you have Rationalwiki with a very strong new athiest left wing bias.
Both sites can be edited by anyone, but they no longer have any people providing counterpoints, and so are much more prone to bias. Let me show how the neutral langauge just disapears from them.
Taking David Wood as an example (a subject likely to provoke bias in both of them). I'm going to bold some of the key phrases, and see how the sites present them differently, and how Rationalwiki and Conservapedia try to subtly (or not so subtly) ensure that the reader agrees with the world view.
Lets start with wikipedia
"In a video testimony[6] about Wood's conversion to Christianity he has stated that he was an atheist[2] in his youth, and that he had run-ins with the law by breaking into homes and later went as far as smashing his father's head in with a hammer[7] at the age of 18 in an attempt on his life, claiming a belief that morality was merely societal rules that were beneath him.[8][9] He also said that after the assault on his father, Wood was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and was sentenced to ten years in prison for malicious wounding.
...Wood wrote a polemic regarding the work of Richard Carrier which he titled "Good 'n' Senseless Without God: A Critical Review of Richard Carrier's New Book, Sense & Goodness Without God". Richard Carrier responded to the review with an essay entitled "On the Deceptions of David Wood", in which he argued that Wood misrepresented his arguments and that his review was full of diatribes.[29][30] "
en.wikipedia.org
Now Rationalwiki
"He claims that he used to be an atheist and was a psychopath until he was saved by Jesus himself...In 2005, Wood wrote a long and rambling polemic against historian and atheist Richard Carrier and his book Sense and Goodness Without God, called "Good 'n' Senseless Without God: A Critical Review of Richard Carrier's New Book, Sense & Goodness Without God".[3] Wood's work received massive criticism by Carrier himself in an essay called "On the Deceptions of David Wood", where he slammed Wood for being "a fine example of Christian bigotry" and that his work was "essentially a trash-talking diatribe, filled with open disdain and lack of manners or respect, entirely founded on misrepresenting the facts."[4] David Wood replied to Carrier's criticism in a rather arrogant manner.[5]
rationalwiki.org
Now Conservapedia
" David, a former atheist sociopath, realized that God exists while in jail for the attempted murder of his father."
www.conservapedia.com
In summary, Wikipedia article is much more objective (and is also much more detailed).
So I will stick with Wikipedia, for as Stealers Wheeler once said
"Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am stuck in the middle with you."
Of course everyone is free to use whatever source they like. But when I hear people using Consevapedia or Rationalwiki I may well silently judge them in the same away I do when someone tells me to go to Infowars to discover the truth...
Both sites can be edited by anyone, but they no longer have any people providing counterpoints, and so are much more prone to bias. Let me show how the neutral langauge just disapears from them.
Taking David Wood as an example (a subject likely to provoke bias in both of them). I'm going to bold some of the key phrases, and see how the sites present them differently, and how Rationalwiki and Conservapedia try to subtly (or not so subtly) ensure that the reader agrees with the world view.
Lets start with wikipedia
"In a video testimony[6] about Wood's conversion to Christianity he has stated that he was an atheist[2] in his youth, and that he had run-ins with the law by breaking into homes and later went as far as smashing his father's head in with a hammer[7] at the age of 18 in an attempt on his life, claiming a belief that morality was merely societal rules that were beneath him.[8][9] He also said that after the assault on his father, Wood was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and was sentenced to ten years in prison for malicious wounding.
...Wood wrote a polemic regarding the work of Richard Carrier which he titled "Good 'n' Senseless Without God: A Critical Review of Richard Carrier's New Book, Sense & Goodness Without God". Richard Carrier responded to the review with an essay entitled "On the Deceptions of David Wood", in which he argued that Wood misrepresented his arguments and that his review was full of diatribes.[29][30] "
David Wood (Christian apologist) - Wikipedia
Now Rationalwiki
"He claims that he used to be an atheist and was a psychopath until he was saved by Jesus himself...In 2005, Wood wrote a long and rambling polemic against historian and atheist Richard Carrier and his book Sense and Goodness Without God, called "Good 'n' Senseless Without God: A Critical Review of Richard Carrier's New Book, Sense & Goodness Without God".[3] Wood's work received massive criticism by Carrier himself in an essay called "On the Deceptions of David Wood", where he slammed Wood for being "a fine example of Christian bigotry" and that his work was "essentially a trash-talking diatribe, filled with open disdain and lack of manners or respect, entirely founded on misrepresenting the facts."[4] David Wood replied to Carrier's criticism in a rather arrogant manner.[5]
David Wood
David Wood (1976–) is an American Christian apologist, an evangelical missionary, and a loud speaker against atheism and Islam. He is the head of the Acts 17 Apologetics Ministry, ran the now-defunct website AnsweringInfidels.com,[1] and member of the Society of Christian Philosophers and the...
Now Conservapedia
" David, a former atheist sociopath, realized that God exists while in jail for the attempted murder of his father."
David Wood - Conservapedia
In summary, Wikipedia article is much more objective (and is also much more detailed).
So I will stick with Wikipedia, for as Stealers Wheeler once said
"Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am stuck in the middle with you."
Of course everyone is free to use whatever source they like. But when I hear people using Consevapedia or Rationalwiki I may well silently judge them in the same away I do when someone tells me to go to Infowars to discover the truth...
Lexicus
Deity
My problem with Rational wiki is that it is an answer to a problem we already have answer for, and instead has just created a new problem. Rational wiki was set up in a response to Conservapedia being a smoking pile of biased unreliable garbage. However we already had an answer to that problem, and it is called Wikipedia! So you have Conservapedia which was set up in response to Wikipedia's supposed left wing bias, and now you have Rationalwiki trying to do the job of Wikipedia, but doing it much less well. For Rationalwiki has the same problems as Conservapedia, in that it is an echochamber and is prone to issues such as confirmation bias. On the one side you have Conservapedia with a very strong fundamentalist Christian right wing bias, and on the otherside you have Rationalwiki with a very strong new athiest left wing bias.
Both sites can be edited by anyone, but they no longer have any people providing counterpoints, and so are much more prone to bias. Let me show how the neutral langauge just disapears from them.
Taking David Wood as an example (a subject likely to provoke bias in both of them). I'm going to bold some of the key phrases, and see how the sites present them differently, and how Rationalwiki and Conservapedia try to subtly (or not so subtly) ensure that the reader agrees with the world view.
Lets start with wikipedia
"In a video testimony[6] about Wood's conversion to Christianity he has stated that he was an atheist[2] in his youth, and that he had run-ins with the law by breaking into homes and later went as far as smashing his father's head in with a hammer[7] at the age of 18 in an attempt on his life, claiming a belief that morality was merely societal rules that were beneath him.[8][9] He also said that after the assault on his father, Wood was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and was sentenced to ten years in prison for malicious wounding.
...Wood wrote a polemic regarding the work of Richard Carrier which he titled "Good 'n' Senseless Without God: A Critical Review of Richard Carrier's New Book, Sense & Goodness Without God". Richard Carrier responded to the review with an essay entitled "On the Deceptions of David Wood", in which he argued that Wood misrepresented his arguments and that his review was full of diatribes.[29][30] "
David Wood (Christian apologist) - Wikipedia
Now Rationalwiki
"He claims that he used to be an atheist and was a psychopath until he was saved by Jesus himself...In 2005, Wood wrote a long and rambling polemic against historian and atheist Richard Carrier and his book Sense and Goodness Without God, called "Good 'n' Senseless Without God: A Critical Review of Richard Carrier's New Book, Sense & Goodness Without God".[3] Wood's work received massive criticism by Carrier himself in an essay called "On the Deceptions of David Wood", where he slammed Wood for being "a fine example of Christian bigotry" and that his work was "essentially a trash-talking diatribe, filled with open disdain and lack of manners or respect, entirely founded on misrepresenting the facts."[4] David Wood replied to Carrier's criticism in a rather arrogant manner.[5]
David Wood
David Wood (1976–) is an American Christian apologist, an evangelical missionary, and a loud speaker against atheism and Islam. He is the head of the Acts 17 Apologetics Ministry, ran the now-defunct website AnsweringInfidels.com,[1] and member of the Society of Christian Philosophers and the...
Now Conservapedia
" David, a former atheist sociopath, realized that God exists while in jail for the attempted murder of his father."
David Wood - Conservapedia
In summary, Wikipedia article is much more objective (and is also much more detailed).
So I will stick with Wikipedia, for as Stealers Wheeler once said
"Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am stuck in the middle with you."
Of course everyone is free to use whatever source they like. But when I hear people using Consevapedia or Rationalwiki I may well silently judge them in the same away I do when someone tells me to go to Infowars to discover the truth...
Saying that rationalwiki is as bad as conservapedia and infowars is the most braindead thing i've seen in a while, not saying rationalwiki is great but it is miles better than either of those waste dumps lol
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,873
Not a fallacy
Sure
The vaccine works my dude.
Anyway you’ve been engaging in the genetic fallacy by refusing to engage with the RationalWiki page. Like sure I think RationalWiki is mid but the relevant parts of the page I want you to engage with are the bits that directly quote her lol.
Narz
keeping it real
Hence my asking for clarity about the difference. Seems forum communists spend 99.99% of their time poking holes in capitalism & almost no time fleshing out how "Global CommunismⓇ" would work IRL.
Ok it's a theory. Is there any evidence for it (creativity output increased as a society becomes more socialist?)
I've known lots of people who haven't had to work (due to disability, benefits, rich spouse, retirement, trust fund, whathaveyou) and I have not noticed these individuals are more creative (altho I do agree @ the other extreme that "hustle culture" people who work 60+ hours a week are less creative, all work & no play makes Jack a dull boy & all that).
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
That's not the claim. The claim is that people who can't become artists due to lacking free time could now pursue that interest with more leisure time. It's now a claim perhaps that requires some evidence, but I also tend to think it's a self-justifying claim as the people who push for more free time are citing such reasons as lack of time to pursue their interests.
Well I've noticed quite the opposite and it seems to me a disproportionate amount of creation comes from those who don't have to work at all. A good chunk of these people are also gainfully employed as journalists and commentators.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,873
Yeah and like a lot of people don’t and won’t become artists no matter how much time we throw at them. I say good for them, people should do what they want (within reason).
Narz
keeping it real
Idleness is the devil's playground.
The less people expect/demand of you the less you will deliver.
Oh?
Every time I hear the words "the jab" I immediately think of the hordes of willfully-scientifically illiterate people in my province who eagerly lapped up every ignorant thing Trump and other far-right <individuals> screeched on-camera and on social media.
Where is your "objective proof"?
This seems like vibes, and not an actual truism.
You say all some posters do is poke holes in capitalism. What is this, then?
You ask for workable socialism, but every time a part of it is suggested, you reject it.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,873
Wrong. The quantity and quality of my art would improve hundredfold if I didn’t need to spend most of my week being exhausted by my day job.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
