Comments by "buddermonger2000" (@buddermonger2000) on "Second Thought Is Anti American Trash" video.

Did you watch the video? As fundamentally he didn't post any positions of his own but instead worked to deconstruct the arguments of Second Thought using the very information cited in Second Thought's video. Which makes it very difficult to call it "my propaganda is truth" since he didn't even bring his own information...
5
I understand the sentiment, but in real terms, that's how a lot of real papers start and are written, and usually, it's given as a quick answer to the video title. He starts with the conclusion, but he does actually support it quite well throughout the video, and in real terms, it comes out as a thesis. Thus, he has effectively used his conclusion as a thesis. Which is perfectly acceptable since the whole idea of argumentation is to prove why what you initially said is correct.
3
What makes that propaganda? It's a sponsorship like any other. Masterworks exists as a company and asks you to invest in art over stocks and It's not exactly considered propaganda. It's just an ad. They exist. We all know what they're for.
2
@sprockkets The irony falls flat if you at all think about it. We know the ad.
2
Thank you for the extra information. Wish this could've made it to him
2
18:44 I'm aware at the making of this video you'd have no knowledge of this but I've a more recent example of this exact phenomenon where polls on US attitudes toward the Ukraine war basically said that they didn't want to send more support than the current level or more direct involvement, but in the same poll voted yes to a "No Fly Zone" which effectively means that the average US citizen doesn't want boots on the ground or increases support but wants outright war via the USAF.
1
You haven't watched the video
1
He used the sources from Second Thought's video...
1
@Jeff Aguiar It's an incredibly important one because it's been the biggest barrier to democracy historically before the industrial revolution. Not to mention, so many systems have failed because of that very reason. People are not all good and will not simply sit idly by. You must be defensible and stable as a state. If you don't have a state... good luck resisting the states in your area.
1
That's not what he said at all though. He said it doesn't matter and doesn't imply that the poor are poorer for it which is entirely different and supported by a growth in such but a reduction in poverty by roughly 10% in one year.
1
@Aryam007 It has not stayed the same and has changed wildly by product in question
1
@JXRDY. Why does it matter? If you take the premise that having more money does not automatically mean others have less, and you can prove it by showing a 10% decrease in the poverty rate in one year (which is a measurable rise in wealth in the most vulnerable part of the population), on what grounds do you have to say in which it matters? What is the line of reasoning you have to attest that it matters in any way besides that it kind of looks bad and stokes envy?
1
@JXRDY. No no see here's what I don't understand: what is the problem with someone having more money Than others? What is wrong with having so much wealth? I mean what I've brought evidence for is that it doesn't actually take away from the wealth of others and given examples to support that. You haven't indicated either that you believe that it is taking away from the wealth of others. In this context, what is wrong with income inequality?
1
Except it largely isn't. Income inequality is a natural phenomenon that comes out of a hierarchical structure that is business. In terms of growth of money... notice that American businesses tend to be larger than European ones and also often much newer which means they're able to grow much faster in wealth due to being more recent industries with higher margins and being built up recently compared to the costs of being an old company in an industry with lower margins
1
@Warren Englehart You said it was connected to our politics and our democracy while then attempting to pin the blame on corporations funding politicians. What I Have said is that it is a natural phenomenon that comes from having any sort of business environment at all and would exist with or without any involvement from politicians and in fact would be largely unchanged without their interference.
1
@Warren Englehart Yeah and businesses really aren't a democratic process nor should they be given the effort to get there isn't democratic. What you're arguing for is basically that someone who takes the effort to create a company should not have Control over it because he has to hire people who don't make the decisions nor have as much investment in it as he does. Also frankly they naturally must maintain a competitive edge which doesn't necessarily come well with a democratic process. Not to mention that even in a more democratic process such as a worker co-op income inequality still exists because you MUST demonstrate the difference in position and ability who have different levels of importance.
1
@Warren Englehart You're right people with lots of money fund politicians. However with all of the competing interests the benefits are actually fairly minimal. And in real terms much of what is wanted by the people is completely contradictory. Not to mention how many interest groups are created from the people which then go ahead and use the same influence as the wealthy via collective buying power and donations. Which overall takes the influence from "We control the government" to "Not so negligible that there's no benefit, but benefits tend to be small" as the benefits more than much else tend to just be tax code benefits... and since taxes are immoral anyway I see little problem with it. In terms of exacerbating problems of income inequality... the effect is negligible.
1
@Warren Englehart First i think you need to watch Kraut's video on what Americans don't understand about public Healthcare but I digress. And In real terms they're getting donations for positions they already have and are still supported by large sectors of the population. It's not like it's simply opposed by broad consensus and if such consensus existed it likely would not matter if they were having the donations to it. I also think it's fairly obvious that these politicians still need votes and their constituency doesn't like it they just get voted out
1
should've watched the video
1
@TheFallinhalo Why is it wrong?
1
@Madinogi You don't understand my question. At all. I'm asking why is it wrong for there to be such a disparity. Why is it wrong to have outsized gains and or benefits? I want you to explain why it is immoral. Why is equality a moral good? Why is fairness important? I want you to explain these things to me. Btw the system where you get what you pay in? Yeah congrats that's the current system. Problem is what's being paid in isn't actually as much as you think it is and different work has far different values making it far more equal in context, but that's not the conversation at hand.
1
Well, no, you've made a mistake, and what it does is distract you from the wealth you have. It's literally the "big fish small pond" comparison of relative situation. If your definition of poverty includes multiple sets of computer electronics as well as most functioning facilities, even though you're "in poverty" you can be doing better in real terms than those in the middle tiers of wealth in other societies.
1
@kaluschke It's overall wealth and access which is considered not just monetary value
1