I built this Chrome extension to bypass UK's censorship. It is the easiest way to access blocked sites.
Simply install the GAC Chrome extension, login, and the blocked sites are immediately bypassed.
Edited by dipshit420 ()
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth
http://nber.org/papers/w15508.pdf
Denmark has the 3rd highest wealth inequality in the world, just below Zimbabwe. Cheers.
Edited by asdfasdf4556 ()
If you think about it, ideally a worker's state would have higher wealth inequality than presently as few people would own property, therefore the few with property would greatly skew the data.
Whatever floats your boat swirls.
NBER > Wikipedia > Wikipedia talk pages
asdfasdf4556 posted:I can't fight anarchosyndicalist furries on 420chan anymore,
why not, orwell and soviet psychonaut still post there
why not, orwell and soviet psychonaut still post there
Verizon isn't giving me free IPs anymore, I think I bankrupted them.
hm actually soviet psychonaut seems to have seen the light of rothbard-hoppe thought
Yeah I think its only a matter of time. People usually change ideologies when they get a job. I wish Ninkendo would stop taking his ritalin so he could come back and post.
Edited by hfhfghgs6 ()
gotta rub me the right way honey
We're a product of our society, which, despite what the MRAs would have us believe, is a largely patriarchal one. That isn't any one individual's fault, and however aware we are of it, it is so ingrained that we sometimes can't escape it. I think a lot of people get defensive about this stuff because they perceive people pointing this sort of stuff out as a personal attack (and sometimes it is) but I think most people that draw attention to it, at least around here I hope, are in fact just trying to raise awareness and have intelligent discussions (like I perceive Sophia to be doing).
Let's do a thought experiment. I know this is a movie and not a TV show, but lets take the ultimate deadbeat comedic character. Hypothetically if Jeff Lebowski's character had been written, all else remaining the same, as a female character, what do people guess the reception would have been? What would the nickname "The Dude" have been replaced with? Would it have been seen as being as funny? As critically acclaimed? As embraced as a cult classic? Does anyone here think they personally would have liked it more or less, if being completely honest with themselves (not asking anyone to post the answer here if they don't like the honest answer, just think about it), or would it have made no difference? Assume for the thought experiment that the actress chosen to play... Jane Lebowski was just as good at comedic acting as Jeff Bridges.
I personally think the reviews we'd have read of the Big Lebowski would have been very different. If I'm brutally honest with myself, those reviews either would have coloured my perception of the film, or my inherent sexism might have done that all by itself (I was much younger back then, and I definitely had some very questionable outlooks on life) and I probably wouldn't have liked it as much. I believe this is what's happening with Girls, but of course that is an impossible claim to verify or prove in any way without access to multiple universes.
This is a forum where we casually discuss stuff we watch on TV. It isn't D&D. Say for example if someone had said something like "in New Girl, I think Schmidt was generally disliked at first, but people seem to have since warmed to the character, despite him still being a massive dickhead at times". Most would probably voice agreement. One or two might have said they still dislike him as much now as they did back then. Some might even make the claim that the character is sexist. But would anyone have asked for specific citations from various critics? I very much doubt it. So why this higher standard with Girls?
why don't you like income ginis. is it because wealth ginis are massively skewed by real estate the monetary value of which is essentially a fantasy
Haha I'm an inegalitarian.
Its a troll anyway because social spending is a short term measure while wealth is a long term measure. If you want an actual academic study about how the welfare state affects income and wealth inequality differently then I have those of course, they're in the "bad posts" forum.
I would upvote Libelous but it crashes tor.
real estate the monetary value of which is essentially a fantasy
Its not entirely a fantasy because mansions are a display of wealth, and the primary source of leftism is to envy of others' property.
Roseweird, I have more questions for you, if you don't mind. Consider this scenario.
A CEO works for a company and makes $1 million in a year and produces the equivalent of $1 million + (insert positive quantity here) worth of surplus value to his employers (shareholders). He spends all his money on nondurable goods and owns no capital. Is the CEO an oppressed proletarian?
In the second year the company does less well and the CEO makes only $100. He spends all of it on stocks. Is the CEO now a capitalist, because he owns capital? If not how much capital would the CEO have to own before becoming a capitalist?
Consider another scenario. Bob makes $1 million a year working as a doctor at hospital and owns no capital. Bill owns a $100,000 restaurant and makes $-1 million a year in debt. Is Bob an oppressed proletarian? Is Bill an oppressive capitalist?
One more. Jim votes for the government to take money from James. Jim is on welfare and does not work, James is not on welfare and does work. Is James an oppressed proletarian earning less than the value of his labor? Does voting count as political capital? Can political capital be used to extract surplus value from others? If your response is "it depends" then please detail each case.
Oh and lastly, why is marxism arbitrary and retarded? Why is marxism based on a nonexistent alternate class-polarized universe which was supposed to happen soon but didn't even exist when Marx was writing? Why does libertarianism at least have simple principles which can be implemented in real life with minimal ambiguity in most cases?
Edited by hfhfghgs6 ()
i wish you the best of luck with your new ideology which comes to a confused standstill after questions like "how do you deal with pollution"
You don't. Liberal regulations don't deal with it either, they just outsource polluting industries to Third World peoples.
But to answer your question- if someone does something to you, you can do it to them.
http://my.firedoglake.com/kgosztola/2011/06/07/anti-mountaintop-removal-coal-mining-activists-march-on-blair-mountain/
Remember when those West Virginian environmentalists sabotaged polluting coal mines? Although left papers were all excited about it, that's actually an example of private environmental regulation. Yep, protesting ecohippies are the Free Market's way of dealing with pollution. If you participate in a boycott, demonstration or sit-in to impose costs on a private entity in accordance with your interpretation of polycentric law, you're doing what anarchocapitalists want you to!