Truth Discussion Time - Page 86

Yes...capitalism is failing very hard at the moment.

Although if economists think capitalism is a system that strives for economic growth, they are mistaken. It is a system where profit is the main motive. A great deal of profit now mainly comes from outside the 'real economy', the part of the economy that produces goods and serves and increases growth. It comes from finance. The neoliberal economic program has actually hurt economic growth, which was the thing economists argued it would get right.

I ain't watching an 18min video, but I think any economic and political system ought to be based on the needs and wants of human nature, where human nature is based on the biological and psychological needs and capacities of the human. it doesn't seem that capitalism allows for the full capacities of human nature to me because it constrains the freedom of the individual, it reduces workers to nothing more than extensions of a machine in the workplace, or cogs in a machine if you think about the social heirachy. They are made to conform to absolutist goals as well, which is profit maximization. The system is very totalitarian although set up in a very different way from a totalitarian state. Marx's theories on alienation summed it pretty well i thought.

So i'm opposed to capitalism on multiple points but one is that it simply doesn't conform to human nature.

yeah the idea that USA is a welfare state, i mean really? That's a sick joke. Things are so bad for the poorest 70-80% of Americans. And yeah cities have been getting food stamps for like 2500 years..., Athens and Rome had grain subsidised to the populace. Food stamps arn't that impressive for the technological capabilities we have now, and it's not impressive compared to what other nations do.

On May 06 2018 22:15 Loco wrote: Understanding definitions matters if you care about understanding your interlocutor and making yourself understood. Like, it matters when you call yourself an anarchist and virtually all the people who call themselves anarchists think that you're not an anarchist. If you don't care about definitions, that's the equivalent of saying that you don't care about engaging in rigorous thought and you don't care about meaningful things like scholarly consensus. You're just too smart for that and you've figured out the "real definitions" that intellectuals are ignorant about. It's maybe not a perfect label, but it would be more accurate to call yourself an anti-state, market fundamentalist. The issues with Marxism go well beyond the so-called human nature you believe in and that's so primary through your crypto-social Darwinist lens. The main problem with Marxist theory is not its critique of capitalism, it's that it was fundamentally faith-based (much like your own views, which as far as I can tell haven't evolved in the past 10 years). Marx inherited this faith from Hegel, who was a brilliant philosopher but he misled a lot of people with his dialectics. Historical materialism/dialectical materialism was driven by a grand narrative that turned out to be false, like every other grand narrative. It isn't "anti-capitalism" that has failed and "can only fail because of human nature", it was this faith in a grand narrative that was doomed from the start. It's also implied in your statement that, by contrast, capitalism isn't failing, which is ridiculous. It is failing in innumerable ways, a lot of which Marx was perfectly right about. Right now, economists who preach the neoliberal credo (so virtually all economists) have placed a huge wager on the ability of continual economic growth to solve the massive problems that we face. This is not based on science and it has no historical precedent, it is an ideological gamble (in the ability of scientists to come up with revolutionary inventions) and the risks are nothing short of the total annihilation of our species. So at the very least, you should be agnostic about growth and have a nuanced view of the pros and cons that were brought with the industrial revolution instead of one-sidedly glorifying it as the best possible system like all the libertarians and neoliberals do.

Indeed definitions do matter when its causing real misunderstanding but most of the times it's not the case and is people playing or bitching about meaningless semantics, exactly as it happened above, in regards to anarcho-capitalist, I was unaware leftists had hijacked the term but it appears Eri was right when he pointed that out, so I guess i just add the -capitalist after to clarify.

What do you mean that what failed was "his faith in the grand narrative", be specific and less abstract, I can be very specifics of the rason why I think its a doomed ideology but I think you know well what I mean.

You confuse keynesian monetarianism with laissez faire free market, but I wont fall into the "Real capitalism hasnt been tried yet" fallacy that you make about marxism, so I admit its big flaws and mostly I share the concern of this race of consumption against technology but I think it's a race against population growth rather than consumption per/capita, and this isn't a trivial disagreement since every shape of solution for this problem you can come up will probably be a misguided travestry in my eyes and viceversa.

I dont think of it as "the best possible system", I think it is surprisingly and elegantly efficient, I suppose I would expect a more chaotic result of "just let shit run itself", I suppose its a big like evolution not that evolution is perfect in any way as fellow anti-natalist you should know how I feel about it, I think the free market is the best system we can have in our society today, perhaps in a future with a different society communism is more viable, in fact seeing the incraesing wealth inequality growing, if the gini coefficient doesnt correct itself I'm with Elon Musk that a universal basic income will be required.

Now that I'm talking about it, that Universal basic income is far more reasonable than "free" healthcare, education, food etc because it doesnt allow the state to meedle with the free market so you dont see healthcare & education prices going through the roof as it does today.

On May 07 2018 12:23 Loco wrote:

The video is pretty flawed and narrow sighted, it just goes on about very narrow definition of human needs and how while these are met they perform better overall but ignore anything else, for example when its talking about rewards it says along the lines of "only menial tasks are done better with a reward", sadly thats 99% of the jobs on the fucking world.

I'm sure ballerinas, artists and cancer cure researchers will perform just as good or even better with no reward, but nobody is going to scrub toilets for free, nobody is going to feel ikigai filling up sale reports in spreadsheets 8 hours a day, fuck that I dont want to serve Ventti lattes, I want to be an Astronaut, I'm not qualified? do I need to compete with someone else for that position? did you just say compete? do you mean you want me to underperform and not archieve my full potential as human being? you vertical society fascist!.



How can you ask me a rebuttal of this? before that explain how this nonsense would actually work in real life.

Not to be a pedant, but to use the word "hijacked" means that it would have, at some point (any point), been used to describe anything other than a leftist philosophy, and then would have been co-opted by leftists, which is obviously not the case. It is historically consistent under its various schools of thought and in essence the belief that society would be best organized without rulers, which means without hierarchies. It seems important to mention because it was Rothbart who hijacked it in the mid-20th century when he coined the oxymoronic "anarcho-capitalism" while working with a right-wing propaganda organization.

Anarcho-capitalism, unlike other anarchist strands, is completely ahistorical, and the only people who think or have ever thought that the position isn't self-contradictory are anarcho-capitalists themselves, who believe that hierarchies and voluntarism can work together because the free market takes care of us, somehow. But a person is never truly free to choose between competitors to help them meet their needs or goals, due to the inequality of bargaining power, which is unavoidable under capitalism. The people who own property and who control the means of production always have the upper hand. If the non-aggression principle was expanded to include the systemic use of force over others as a form of aggression that society should not be tolerant of, the contradiction would vanish. But since this is a Spencerian-influenced philosophy, it can't happen, there has to be winners and losers, the strong and the weak, exploiters and exploitees. It is the "natural order of things" (according to Darwin, apparently).

Ancaps argue that without the state there is no single monopoly on force, but in an anarcho-capitalist society there are instead multiple corporate entities who hold power over others. These necessarily become the new rulers of society. It doesn't do away with the force of the state, it just transfers it, minus the ability to regulate it to protect the most vulnerable. It's anathema to anarchist thought. Not mentioning the fact that anarcho-capitalists have never organized themselves, it is purely an internet phenomenon at this point, so every charge against the position being purely idealistic and not being anarchic is very much valid.

The video is not necessarily what I want you to refute, it is just something I stumbled upon and assumed was a perfect springboard for you to lay out your arguments against anarchists. You obviously have disagreements with anarchists, and I am saying that I have never heard you lay them out in some precise manner. By linking to this video I am giving you someone who is laying out his cards and you have every option available to refute some precise arguments you find weak and expose the flawed logic behind his worldview. Obviously it is not an exhaustive video, it doesn't pretend to be, but there should be enough there to criticize in more than one brief paragraph. If you think it's not worth your time, fine, but it is your position that is ahistorical and non-credible in the eyes of the many, so I feel you should be taking any opportunity you have to correct what you perceive to be a delusion on the part of those aforementioned many. You have after all piggybacked on their theories, the least you can do is explain what you have done away with and why, that's how philosophy is always done.

I'm not sure what you mean by "how this nonsense would work" -- the video is not prescriptive, it is descriptive. It says human nature exists, here are some inherent traits, and here is how we become our best and most fulfilled and productive selves (from what I remember). You also believe that human nature exists, that we have inherent traits and that we have to account for them in our political economy. So, I don't see what the problem is. He has described what he believes is true about human nature, and you by contrast can do the same. If you want to know how anarchism would work in real life, how it could be brought about, then that's another question altogether, and you can do your own research on that and we can discuss it if need be.

You haven't given me much to reply to here and I wasn't even looking to debate over this, I just just curious to hear your rationale for dismissing anarchist thought. I think the idea is that, while yes, there are a great many menial tasks to be done in a functioning society, it is counter-productive to structure the society around rewards for doing X thing, and to drill that into the head of children at an early age. The ultimate, most desirable reward is not to be given to you by others or programmed into you and used to manipulate you, it is to be free, as much as possible, to do what you want to do with your life. It is to have that baseline where your basic needs are met, which involves a lot of menial work but also non-menial work that helps you reach your potential and which is stifled under capitalism. Notice how all those neat progress graphs coming out of the Cato Institute and other propaganda outfits never involve two things: mental health and the well-being of any of the other species populating the Earth? Yeah, they have a good reason to omit that. When Freud wrote about "civilization and its discontents", capitalism/dominance hierarchies ought to have been central to his critique. It's a very incomplete book, which Laborit properly added to and it's a shame you will never get to read it.

The idea that universal basic income is a desirable outcome for leftists is pretty misguided, it's little known but it was actually supported by Hayek and other neoliberals, basically the people leftists despite the most. It's something that becomes more and more evidently necessary to be implemented by the capitalists so that they can keep exploiting the labor of workers in the face of the rise in automation. The economy needs to grow forever, people need to buy the shit the capitalists sell for a profit, hence the support from the right-wingers and pro-establishment neoliberals to give people a basic income. There are some very worrisome aspects to UBI that I won't get into here. This is a pretty good overview that opened my eyes on some of the issues with it.

As for my criticisms of Marxism, I've already written a gigantic post about it, what was by far my biggest post on LP, so I don't plan on repeating myself here. Briefly, Marx didn't account for the non-materialist factors influencing humans and he believed in the Idea of Progress and viewed history as linear and deterministic (and therefore predictable). This was tragically wrong. Mine is not a "communism was never tried" position, which is a troublesome position to hold. Your position is equally troublesome, Marxist theory is not this static thing that was tried many times and debunked, it has changed over time, and it isn't equal to communism. Communism was theorized by Marx as being the last stage of human social development which would come to exist after a revolution resulting in a seizure of power by the proletariat. It is historically accurate to say that this indeed has not happened, but that doesn't absolve Marx for his other false ideas that have had tragic consequences. This post is already way too long and I haven't even addressed the GDP/population growth issue which is indeed not a trivial problem at all. My position on this has changed in the last year but I won't get into it now. Suffices to say that it is unsustainable growth that is the problem, not simply overpopulation per se. The planet could easily sustain more people than we have now if we weren't so committed to living unsustainably. There's very good data to suggest that population will begin to level off in the coming decades, but there is no such data suggesting that we are likely to embark on a fundamentally needed sustainability revolution.

Anarchy in a political context means no government, period.

For some reason you are obsessed with definitions and language when my position is perfectly clear, I wont stop using the word to describe myself only because you want to own that word for your little dogma and I wont engage in further discussinos about definitions.

No, anarcho-capitalism isnt self contradictory, anarcho capitalism isn't gainst hierarchies, its against government, I am perfectly fine with a boss holding power over its employee, its a mutual agreement with no cohercion.

Indeed the free market isn't perfectly fluid (it is more fluid every day though) so there is an inequality of bargaining power as you mention, its one of the many flaws of this sistem, I've never claimed its perfect, It's just the best one that I can think of or know about, however it doesnt transfer power from the government, the government, the government uses violence and cohercion, it doesn't deal in mutual agreements, you either comply or you get kidnapped, if you resist, you get killed.

Unlike government corporations are vulnerable and fall all the time, Bank of America along with a third of the financial corporations went bust not long ago, but the government bailed them out with tax payers money, the government is the one that crates these gargantuan corporations that they are supposed to stifle with your so called regulations that you think save the poor.

Why do you care if anarcho capitalism is ahistorical? If something hasn't been tried its not valid? Your ideology has been tried and it killed hundreds of millions, oh but it evolved so it hasn't been tried, which means its ahistorical too lol.



I'm not sure what you are asking me, you want me to lay out my thoguths on human nature about political systems? I thought it was clear but I think people seek self interest above common good, that fact alone will shatter any collectivist system you can think of, I mean, I could go a lot into detail about the many flaws in our species and how it would sabotage collectivism, is this what you want? I dont want to expand any more than I have to before knowing for sure if this is what you are asking me to explain

I clicked randomly on that 1hr long video critique about UBI and she said "governments aren't going to give UBI to anybody coming into the country, so only privileged...", I dont feel like listening to 1hr of that trash.


There are some hints that population growth might go down but unlike consumption per/capita its an exponential problem, also of course overconsumption and damages to the enviroment have shown improvement, there are more forests today in the 1st world than 100 years, ago, there is also an increase of usage of cleaner energy sources, usage of plastic etc, I bet you we will live in a world of clean energy way before we are in a world with negative population growth.

Bois the orange potato did it again. He broke the Iran deal. I sincerely hope the UK, France, Canada, and Germany leave the USA to rot in Iran once they engage in war. Vietnam nr2 incoming

Let's see what kind of a terrorist act happens which will be blamed on Iran now.

On May 08 2018 21:49 Spitfiree wrote: Bois the orange potato did it again. He broke the Iran deal. I sincerely hope the UK, France, Canada, and Germany leave the USA to rot in Iran once they engage in war. Vietnam nr2 incoming Let's see what kind of a terrorist act happens which will be blamed on Iran now.

Europe is forced to support trump because of Irans geographic position and because its very likely Russia and China support Iran

Good post loco. It is true that CATO doesn't look at other factors like mental health and other species, but i think to bring up only those two examples makes it look like your ceding another point. CATO would argue that neoclassical or Austrian economics is better for the poor in the long run, which it isn't. I see many people cede the point that Austrian economics wins economically, -meaning higher growth, reduced poverty. This is in fact not true. And it's important, since mental health and the welfare of animals is not high on the list of what human beings value in the world. It is normal to value human needs above the needs of other species, and in my opinion that is mostly a morally justified belief to me given that humans are cognitively advanced. (by similar argument we can argue a smarter alien race has the right to enslave us, and i accept that too). I also think good mental health is not nearly as important as basic needs like food, shelter, water.

Baal you don't think regulations on the finance industry have helped the poor, that's clearly false. Regulations did help the poor.

It's not a fallacy to say communism hasn't been tried, nor capitalism hasn't been tried. They are empirically testable statements. We can see that countries like somalia have tried something close to anarcho capitalism and 1870 paris tried communism for a week, 1936 spain has tried something reasonably close to communism, Ukraine tried communism in 1917-it was crushed by trotsky/lenin. Communism usually doesn't last for more than a few months because it is crushed by authoritarian forces.

Government/state do not mean the same thing, using dictionary definitions is generally not accepted as good scholarship and you get poor grades for it in undergraduate humanities essays, since it shows your not engaging with the arguments of the original scholarship, loco is correct in saying that rothbard hi-jacked the term anarchism. Anarchism has usually advocated no state, but also at the same time advocated with government under conditions of free association and democratic governance in all aspects of social life.

I am not ceding the point that trickle-down is bullshit and the World Bank data the neoliberals use is fucked, I just didn't think of bringing it up, there was enough to be argued already in that post. It's quite something to really unpack.

The point of my argument is not to make a value judgment on which species has moral primacy. There are philosophical arguments to be made there but they're irrelevant for what I was arguing. For instance, if your primary concern is with cognitive abilities, then we ought to value the life of a healthy pig more than an old, senile person, or a mentally retarded person. I am a gradualist here and I suspect most of us are. Anyway, my point was to highlight that all species, including us, are clearly losing in terms of well-being, from existing under this system. And it matters to point it out. Even if we are not ready to extend our full compassion to other species, the idea that suffering has been reduced drastically thanks to neoliberal capitalism has to be extended to evaluate non-human suffering as well. There is no reason for this to be ignored.




And as usual, there is interconnectedness here. This affects human beings in more ways than one. For instance, the mental health of the people who work in slaughterhouses and meat-packing industries is notoriously awful. So is their risk of injury. And even if we are being purely selfish, we're all going to pay for the environmental degradation that this type of large-scale exploitation causes. And of course, we pay with our physical health, eating those animal products is, alongside with eating highly processed foods, the main reason people are chronically ill, and that's just going up too. Medicine is quite powerless in the face of chronic conditions. Again, we're gambling on scientists coming up with revolutionary solutions for the problems we have created.

Well-being should have primacy. It's like with evolution, no one really thinks that the most important thing in life is to pass on your genes. We don't live to serve the blind mechanism of evolution, even though it is what has gotten us here. We care about our well-being, evolution doesn't. It's the same with economic growth. If it doesn't improve well-being, we ought to change things. And this is why these propaganda outlets hide the data. Because they are in the 1% for whom it's unclear whether or not it benefits their mental health, but materially they are so advantaged as to want to keep things exactly as they are.

Baal, even the definition you gave shows that its origins stems from "rulerless" or "without leaders". It is not about your own narrow definition of the state. I'm not the one with the dogma, you are the one in the incredible minority to use the word in a narrow, ahistorical fashion to mean stateless. The most famous person to hold this same definition is a pseudo cult leader who wouldn't pass a Logic 101 class and who is telling people to prepare for a race war... You are not in good company here.

You say there is mutual agreement and no coercion, and you agree there is inequality of bargaining power, which is contradictory. If I do not hold private property and I do not control the means of production, I am not entering into a "mutual agreement" with a capitalist, I am coerced into giving him my labor if I want to survive. It's like calling doing a service to someone who blackmailed you a mutual agreement, "well you can either do what they want you to do or not, no one is forcing you". It's a semantics game. I am not willing to sell myself short until I am forced to. You can force someone overtly, which is what you're opposed to, but you can also force someone by perpetuating the material conditions for them to be forced into selling themselves as slaves. Capitalism without rulers is not capitalism, period. Why do you think we need rulers? If that's the best system you can imagine, then your imagination has been really stifled.

I'm not sure what you are asking me, you want me to lay out my thoguths on human nature about political systems? I thought it was clear but I think people seek self interest above common good, that fact alone will shatter any collectivist system you can think of, I mean, I could go a lot into detail about the many flaws in our species and how it would sabotage collectivism, is this what you want? I dont want to expand any more than I have to before knowing for sure if this is what you are asking me to explain

Yes. I wanted you to elaborate on those things. To what extent do people do this and why is it inborn and immutable if it is? I'm not interested in truisms and vague arguments, but precise arguments as to what inform your beliefs. Are you familiar at all with the W.E.I.R.D research? Look it up if not, it's relevant to your argument about self-interest.

man these 'public intellectuals', insane. doesn't know what soundness and validity is, students learn that in the first class in an elementary logic course. just writing a book without consulting any literature eh, it seems to be standard practice amoung these 'intellectuals'.

I read the jordan peterson article by nathan robinson recently as well. I showed it to my brother and he asked me if jordan peterson has ever been to school. Regretfully i had to inform him he was a professor of psychology.

yeah i accept that most or all of my moral judgements are based on intuition rather than reason. I can't really find a legitimate reason to value mosquito's or chickens less than humans, it will always have counterexamples.

Yes it obviously also means "with no rulers", so if you want to call yourself anarchist that is fine, against I'm not interested in language, now if me calling myself anarchist confuses you I agreed to call myself anarcho-capitalist to be more clear but that doesnt meet your purity of standards to use the word and to that I say, fuck off, go play true scottsman with somebody else.

I said that the market today isnt perfectly fluid, meaning isolated people can only look at a limited number of job demand, therefore the wages can be slightly controlled, that first of all its a thing that will fade with time in a more globalized and modern market, and more importantly having to sell yourself short if you are in a peculiar situation isn't remotely coercion or slavery thats a ridiculous exageration.

You confuse what is a ruler, a ruler is somebody you either submit to, or die, you can choose to work for somebody and they dont become your rulers, thats a stupid way to see human interactions, and perhaps I lack imagination, but so far you haven't shown me anything beyond my scope my friend, so maybe its you who overestimate your imagination.



I talked about it before, yes seeking personal gain is inborn, it has evolutionary roots, so do forms of cooperation, but no its definitelly not immutable, as you also believe, we are very plastic however its a difficult one to change, and it has to change before we stablish a political system that requires it to run.

(dont have the time to read about WEIRD research but I will read it later)

On May 10 2018 01:11 Stroggoz wrote: I can't really find a legitimate reason to value mosquito's or chickens less than humans, it will always have counterexamples.

level of conscoiusness?

On May 09 2018 07:50 Stroggoz wrote: We can see that countries like somalia have tried something close to anarcho capitalism

What about the Congo Free State?

On May 10 2018 04:27 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On May 09 2018 07:50 Stroggoz wrote: We can see that countries like somalia have tried something close to anarcho capitalism What about the Congo Free State?

seems like a monarchy to me since Leopold had complete authority over everything that happened in the congo. The nation was basically privately owned by a monarch. Private armies seem to be laying waste to the congo over the last 20 years though, there is both state power and private power behind that.

On May 10 2018 04:27 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On May 09 2018 07:50 Stroggoz wrote: We can see that countries like somalia have tried something close to anarcho capitalism What about the Congo Free State?

Belgium was in control of the Congo, it enacted laws on trade, land etc, so nope.


A war-torn somalia did indeed topple its own government and despise being in the middle of violent conflicts it improved in nearly every measurable way (dont know about mental health Loco so you got me on that one ), also if i remember correctly it had the biggest economic growth of the entire continent during the time, obviously it was chaotic and it was when pirates appeared, but I think its a clear example of how things instantly bloom after you remove the inefficiency and corruption of the state.

On May 10 2018 02:03 Baalim wrote: Yes it obviously also means "with no rulers", so if you want to call yourself anarchist that is fine, against I'm not interested in language, now if me calling myself anarchist confuses you I agreed to call myself anarcho-capitalist to be more clear but that doesnt meet your purity of standards to use the word and to that I say, fuck off, go play true scottsman with somebody else. I said that the market today isnt perfectly fluid, meaning isolated people can only look at a limited number of job demand, therefore the wages can be slightly controlled, that first of all its a thing that will fade with time in a more globalized and modern market, and more importantly having to sell yourself short if you are in a peculiar situation isn't remotely coercion or slavery thats a ridiculous exageration. You confuse what is a ruler, a ruler is somebody you either submit to, or die, you can choose to work for somebody and they dont become your rulers, thats a stupid way to see human interactions, and perhaps I lack imagination, but so far you haven't shown me anything beyond my scope my friend, so maybe its you who overestimate your imagination. I talked about it before, yes seeking personal gain is inborn, it has evolutionary roots, so do forms of cooperation, but no its definitelly not immutable, as you also believe, we are very plastic however its a difficult one to change, and it has to change before we stablish a political system that requires it to run. (dont have the time to read about WEIRD research but I will read it later)

I'm perfectly ok with you calling yourself an anarcho-capitalist (and labeling you as such). It describes a specific ideology which is what a political label is for, even if the term itself is oxymoronic when you look at it from a historical perspective. It's not like it's my opinion, it's empirically true. I do lol when I see anarchists calling an-caps "ayn-craps" though.

What's this "you haven't shown me" argument about? Like I should be the one to stimulate your imagination. You have all of the information/literature in the world available at your finger tips. It shouldn't have to be funneled through me, should it? It's your job to seek challenges, not mine to bring them to your door and force you to have a serious look at them. Or at the very least, I'm limited in my ability to do so. How much of the anarchist literature did you look at? How often have you gone to anarchist gatherings or forums to challenge your views? From your statement it looks like this doesn't matter at all to you.

A ruler is someone who "owns" (rules over) private property and who decides who can use it and who can't and for what purposes. A propertarian is a ruler, his scope is just narrower than a monarch who is an absolute ruler. He doesn't have to threaten to kill you. Now, how they came to own things is an important question to address. If there is no God, which you and I agree about, then there were/are no God-given rights to own anything. So, we are the ones who are making the rules. Historically, those rules have served kings and conquerors (and later colonialists/imperialists). Can you give me some examples of private properties that were initially obtained without force/aggression/coercion? I can't really think of any, so I'm curious to know how is it that you reconcile defending private property rights and the non-aggression principle. If it's true that private property has been obtained through force, then it's also true that defending the arbitrary rights of propertarians to own things is an act of violence against everyone else, whether this defense comes from the state or from privately owned police forces and courts.

To what extent are we biologically wired to seek personal gain? By gain I'm assuming you mean ownership and accumulation. And who is the "we"? All human beings, regardless of culture? These are the types of specifics I was asking for clarification about.

ROFL thread material but since it's also on topic... (refers to this if you don't know)



Edit: Might as well add this one... photographed on campus. This is pretty lazy... nothing quite like propaganda that cites Kanye West. Or maybe it's a case of knowing your audience?

There's a lot that can be discussed from this. Seemingly a million links:

The Real "Dangerous" Ideas