Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Mental Outlaw"
channel.
-
189
-
133
-
101
-
47
-
43
-
36
-
@link1565V2 If you want to use a browser or games, you don't need to even touch the command line tho, if you're just doing normie crap, you can jump on almost any major distro and never need to use the terminal, the reason you do it is because its faster, better at reporting errors, better at defining specific behavior, and is often cleaner to work with, but normies don't care about those, and the applications that require you to use it beyond that are not something a normie will ever think about. In using xfce on Manjaro, it was stupid easy to use the application manager installed, which is worse then the one on Mint or Ubuntu.
35
-
32
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
19
-
18
-
16
-
@godfather7339
"whenever the government has interfered"
Not a principled argument.
"it has lead to breaking monopolies,"
And when has the trust-bust results ever competed with someone that wasn't the result of trust-busting? Didn't happen with the steel mills, didn't happen with the railroads, and didn't happen with telecommunication. To this day every company of those busts are either directly or indirectly the result of the original trusts. And that's if the government doesn't own them. And look at the paper trails and economics behind each of those trusts, they did not in fact compete in the market beforehand, they were leveraging local, state, and federal force to ensure their monopoly stayed in place to the the day they were busted. And after the bust they became practical utilities that still operated like a cartel, as a result you got more regulations on what you could and could not do as those companies.
"if there hadn't been the US gov we would still have just one gas company"
In all but name there is only one, you still can't explain the economics behind this and you don't even care to notice that the only reason the prices and service is the way it is because the government regulates the prices and manipulates the market. Gas still does not operate as a part of the market and its almost entirely managed by government force alone. There is no market force that applies to the gas company because they are provided for by our tax dollars.
"This is a proven thing and I don't think it's even worth debating about."
Then why respond? Clearly you don't believe this position for if you did then arguing with me would not be done for I am apparently so irrational that I am not worth the time. See your position is already contradictory and hypocritical by you looking down upon my arguments without looking at them while you also seek to stoke your superiority complex of your position. Quite arrogant and ignorant if I do say so. Also you understand nothing about economics if you claim economic principles are not worth debating.
"If we had been living in the free market, there would have been just 1 company handling everything."
How do you know this? Because some school told you? What reason, what logic, and what demonstration has shown this to be true? Have you examined the economic factors and weighted them independently or do you just trust the word of same random philosopher? What values do you carry that bias you towards such a position? Because it is a bias, one you inherently do not wish to examine honestly. Do you even understand the position you are arguing? This is the exact logic that socialists use to justify domination over public life, this is not a foundation argument, its a baseless claim, it has no reason nor substance behind it. You do know facts require rational behind their position right? Just as statistics need justification (not explanation) so too does economics, and you don't get to interpret it as you wish.
"Can you tell me, what is stopping you from starting your own Amazon, or Google, or Facebook?"
Legally a lot of things, copyright and trademark stand in my way, not to mention I am not allowed to buy land without government approval which I need to state a purpose for, to which I can still get rejected for that specifically, (also need really good credit to do that for no reason) also need to contact a bank and get approved by them too, I also need to get an enterprise plan for networking which is also dominated by a monopoly still who exists at the behest of the government. I need to then buy a business license for operating at any moderate level. I also gotta pay many legal fees for the sake of the business and I won't receive a single subsidy, tax break, or tax credit and I have to manage it all by myself or pay out money for someone to manage that. It is technically possible for me to do that, just as it is technically possible for me to buy a gun in California, but how am I to do such as a regular joe? Look at all the loops I have to jump through and money I have to pay out before I even get a chance to compete? All that is spent capital before I get to anything that would give me profit? And I can't receive any of the government's provisions (nor assistance or backdoor deals, least without bribes) until I prove that my business is highly valuable. And in this economy wrecked by the crash of the dollar, good luck paying the unreasonably ever increasing prices. None of these things that I laid out (which I might add are massively incomplete, there's way more to it) are nor should be necessary for me to build a tech business, I shouldn't even be needing to contact the government outside of maybe telling them of the land I own (which my real estate contractor could do for me) but yet I can't. This drives the cost to be many hundreds to thousands of times more expensive then the endeavor would have been if the government did not seek to control and intervene in every aspect of my and everyone else's lives.
"How is the Gov stopping you from creating these things?"
By the way the list goes on and on. The most I could feasibly do is build a website and there is a possibly I'd still have a shakedown done on me for that.
"The only thing stopping you is Facebook itself, not the gov in any way."
Really? So I don't need to ask the government and the networking company to hook up my tech business? Or to buy a building? Or for the legal and business hoops? I need to ask Facebook for all that and more? Despite the fact I quite literally have to file all of that with both the local and federal government and payout massive sums of cash to them alongside already paying taxes to them. So its Facebook holding me down? Yeah, that makes logical sense.
Good job with the fallacies.
"The bigger question is, monopolies are many times more effecient than some small factory,"
You understand nothing about the word efficiency nor economics. Facebook and Google aren't even slightly efficient, if you knew even a fraction of the software industry you would never have claimed such a foolish thing as that. Everything I've built in software with my own two hands have been momentously more efficient and effective then what they've built, the only things I can't beat on them is money and manpower. Over 60% of their employees don't do anything for most of the day, majority of it is spent goofing off claiming they're doing something when they aren't. And yeah argument from experience or argument from authority fallacy, but there isn't really another way I can demonstrate against such a claim since its not even an argument.
15
-
@link1565V2
"There is zero incentive for a normie user to transition to Linux."
Performance is a big one, and when all they're doing is using a browser, which is 90% of normies, its very easy if you merely give them a helping hand, plenty of other advantages that they'll only notice after the fact, but I know a lot of especially older folks that use old computers instead of paying for new ones, and telling them about lower resource usage and better performance always gets them on board.
"Yeah, it's far better than it used to be, but Windows is just better in that regard."
Outside of specific DRM stuff and anti-cheat, (which they're working on on the latest kernel version) you can pretty much play any game you want with very few hiccups, of all the games I have (around 300 games on steam alone, and I can play most of the non-steam ones on Wine anyway) and less then 15% of them are wholly incapable of Linux in any regard, I can even play Arma with Teamspeak cleanly and easily with mods. (granted that took work to get but Arma is already a massive hassle to get working, you're really not a normie if you can get it working on Windows in the first place) Also performance on games, even in Wine and Proton, still feels generally superior, there have rarely been a game I could say performed worse then what I had on Windows.
"But you'll never see widespread adoption of Linux amongst the non-tech-savy. They just don't care, and are more than happy with the OS pre-installed on their machine."
This is a stupid thing to claim, we're already an actual factor as far as commercial marketshare (even if small, its considered significant now) and it keeps growing, especially with companies like Valve pushing for it. This stuff takes time to happen, and it will grow over time as more people become more familiar with computers, we're still living in an age where most people don't understand how to operate in a computerized age, but soon enough that won't be an option unless all the tech dies, which is a rare chance. But everyone has more complex lives already, figuring out Linux is not more complex then figuring out a car, or the electricity in your house, or most other common work on the house or housework itself. All you need to do is make it a regular occurrence in their life and its literally no different from maintaining a house or car. And convincing those type of people takes a long time and can be initially hard, but once they're in, they're not leaving and its actually extremely easy to teach them.
15
-
14
-
14
-
Ben Kelly The problem is its still compensating for problems that it was designed with and will never be removed, and even worse is that its teaching people crap behavior, habits, structures, and conceptualization, which creates bad developers that never evolve, people abuse Javascript specifically because it lets you get away with too much, and nobody tries to fix that, which in turn introduces so many bugs and problems throughout all its uses (and in its development and spec) that will never get resolved and neither will anyone ever feel inclined to resolve, which means the same for security holes. (which are already easy enough, but Javascript is one of the major bits that makes it easier) Also the language spec itself is so full of bloat even beyond undefined behavior that never errors out, I know for a fact there are holes in it.
12
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@godfather7339
"if corpos managed to infiltrate democratic governments"
You do realize the same people live in all systems right? There are no good humans, everybody (including you and me) is corrupt and infiltrates the systems they participate in with immoral principles to some degree. The entire point is to separate the reliance on corrupt actors executing their power on anyone beyond themselves. Absolute corrupts absolutely. (Which is recognized because man is evil) With government interventionism they are the strongest, not weakest, they can (and very well have) legally kill people without question, whereas without being in the government (like say the government isn't allowed to touch the market at all) there is no capability to do that without breaking the law. (unless we live in a lawless society, which doesn't really exist, least of all for long) And there is no incentive to gain a government advantage if the government can't influence the market.
"that means corpos will just enslave us all in the free market,"
A market in which they can get a government to interfere in the market is not a free market, that is quite literally a fascist market, an extension of socialism. Or you could call it a corporate syndicalism, which is what fascism literally is as defined by Mussolini. (who based it on Marxist Syndicalists, if you actually cared about philosophic historicity)
"you are just proving your own arguments wrong"
By presenting no argumentation and claiming your worldview as fact by yourself. But who is the judge? By whose authority is that claim demonstrated? On what basis can you make such a claim?
"it means that there should just be no corpos, everything people controlled."
Only a fool believes people are capable to judge the lives of others. You can't tell me whats good for me and I can't tell you whats good for you of my own experience. I can tell you what is good for you based on an authority beyond me, but I have no authority to do such. And the same applies to every man, no government, no "peoples", to which you can not collectivize else you become a corporation, can control and regulate anything. Punishment is not preventative, its punitive, else its not punishment but abuse. Are you to whip your child to prevent him from stealing or killing? Why then am I punished for things I have never done?
By the way, Marx was a hate-filled racist psychopath that wanted most people dead, he had no love for the working class, he was part of the proletariat. Yeah its not an argument but given you want to use emotional pleas and "oh profit bad" then you should hear the objective emotional truth. By the way show me a system that doesn't require profit?
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
@sivvinod3187 Welcome to Youtube, where I can't post unless I spam multiple times, have tested on multiple computers, operating systems, browsers, networks, and accounts, and my account won't post unless I spam Youtube comments multiple times. And if I delete the post, all my posts can and have disappeared.
And that aside you do realize propaganda is defined by its content, not character right? Me spamming the comment section does not constitute a valid claim that what I said is propaganda. And not to mention propaganda to who? Who am I beholden to for which my "propaganda" helps? What rational do you have to claim that? I know who your claims are beholden to, they empower government and political power to those in charge as if they aren't corruptible. But when has my argument ever even been implemented by a political power? And where is you rational argument?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I don't see how having a compat layer for Linux is really a big deal here nor a bad thing, it should be fairly obvious that systems will centralize around certain aspects for the sake of dev speed, performance, and power, (this is a natural aspect of markets until the biggest members screw up and lose to the competition) supporting that in the BSDs would be highly useful, since Linux is inherently FOSS as well, if something screws up nobody is specifically required to adhere perfectly to it and that applies just as much to the compat layers, (especially when 99% of the compat layers only has to do with core functionality necessary for function anyway) and again with the BSDs FOSS the same applies to them. And that's aside from the capacity for Linux to not strictly require anything beyond the kernel for function, just because most common users will use or have things that do does not mean it is necessary, this isn't Windows, we don't strictly need the cruft of the common user to use the computer even as a desktop or run any application, consistent and common dependencies are excessively useful and anyone who gets mad that it happens is making a foolish argument, why do we need to keep reinventing the wheel? If you want native things you still have the choice.
3
-
@godfather7339 "whenever the government has interfered"
Not a principled argument.
"it has lead to breaking monopolies,"
And when has the trust-bust results ever competed with someone that wasn't the result of trust-busting? Didn't happen with the steel mills, didn't happen with the railroads, and didn't happen with telecommunication. To this day every company of those busts are either directly or indirectly the result of the original trusts. And that's if the government doesn't own them. And look at the paper trails and economics behind each of those trusts, they did not in fact compete in the market beforehand, they were leveraging local, state, and federal force to ensure their monopoly stayed in place to the the day they were busted. And after the bust they became practical utilities that still operated like a cartel, as a result you got more regulations on what you could and could not do as those companies.
"if there hadn't been the US gov we would still have just one gas company"
In all but name there is only one, you still can't explain the economics behind this and you don't even care to notice that the only reason the prices and service is the way it is because the government regulates the prices and manipulates the market. Gas still does not operate as a part of the market and its almost entirely managed by government force alone. There is no market force that applies to the gas company because they are provided for by our tax dollars.
"This is a proven thing and I don't think it's even worth debating about."
Then why respond? Clearly you don't believe this position for if you did then arguing with me would not be done for I am apparently so irrational that I am not worth the time. See your position is already contradictory and hypocritical by you looking down upon my arguments without looking at them while you also seek to stoke your superiority complex of your position. Quite arrogant and ignorant if I do say so. Also you understand nothing about economics if you claim economic principles are not worth debating.
"If we had been living in the free market, there would have been just 1 company handling everything."
How do you know this? Because some school told you? What reason, what logic, and what demonstration has shown this to be true? Have you examined the economic factors and weighted them independently or do you just trust the word of same random philosopher? What values do you carry that bias you towards such a position? Because it is a bias, one you inherently do not wish to examine honestly. Do you even understand the position you are arguing? This is the exact logic that socialists use to justify domination over public life, this is not a foundation argument, its a baseless claim, it has no reason nor substance behind it. You do know facts require rational behind their position right? Just as statistics need justification (not explanation) so too does economics, and you don't get to interpret it as you wish.
"Can you tell me, what is stopping you from starting your own Amazon, or Google, or Facebook?"
Legally a lot of things, copyright and trademark stand in my way, not to mention I am not allowed to buy land without government approval which I need to state a purpose for, to which I can still get rejected for that specifically, (also need really good credit to do that for no reason) also need to contact a bank and get approved by them too, I also need to get an enterprise plan for networking which is also dominated by a monopoly still who exists at the behest of the government. I need to then buy a business license for operating at any moderate level. I also gotta pay many legal fees for the sake of the business and I won't receive a single subsidy, tax break, or tax credit and I have to manage it all by myself or pay out money for someone to manage that. It is technically possible for me to do that, just as it is technically possible for me to buy a gun in California, but how am I to do such as a regular joe? Look at all the loops I have to jump through and money I have to pay out before I even get a chance to compete? All that is spent capital before I get to anything that would give me profit? And I can't receive any of the government's provisions (nor assistance or backdoor deals, least without bribes) until I prove that my business is highly valuable. And in this economy wrecked by the crash of the dollar, good luck paying the unreasonably ever increasing prices. None of these things that I laid out (which I might add are massively incomplete, there's way more to it) are nor should be necessary for me to build a tech business, I shouldn't even be needing to contact the government outside of maybe telling them of the land I own (which my real estate contractor could do for me) but yet I can't. This drives the cost to be many hundreds to thousands of times more expensive then the endeavor would have been if the government did not seek to control and intervene in every aspect of my and everyone else's lives.
"How is the Gov stopping you from creating these things?"
By the way the list goes on and on. The most I could feasibly do is build a website and there is a possibly I'd still have a shakedown done on me for that.
"The only thing stopping you is Facebook itself, not the gov in any way."
Really? So I don't need to ask the government and the networking company to hook up my tech business? Or to buy a building? Or for the legal and business hoops? I need to ask Facebook for all that and more? Despite the fact I quite literally have to file all of that with both the local and federal government and payout massive sums of cash to them alongside already paying taxes to them. So its Facebook holding me down? Yeah, that makes logical sense.
Good job with the fallacies.
"The bigger question is, monopolies are many times more effecient than some small factory,"
You understand nothing about the word efficiency nor economics. Facebook and Google aren't even slightly efficient, if you knew even a fraction of the software industry you would never have claimed such a foolish thing as that. Everything I've built in software with my own two hands have been momentously more efficient and effective then what they've built, the only things I can't beat on them is money and manpower. Over 60% of their employees don't do anything for most of the day, majority of it is spent goofing off claiming they're doing something when they aren't. And yeah argument from experience or argument from authority fallacy, but there isn't really another way I can demonstrate against such a claim since its not even an argument.
3
-
@godfather7339
"if corpos managed to infiltrate democratic governments"
You do realize the same people live in all systems right? There are no good humans, everybody (including you and me) is corrupt and infiltrates the systems they participate in with immoral principles to some degree. The entire point is to separate the reliance on corrupt actors executing their power on anyone beyond themselves. Absolute corrupts absolutely. (Which is recognized because man is evil) With government interventionism they are the strongest, not weakest, they can (and very well have) legally kill people without question, whereas without being in the government (like say the government isn't allowed to touch the market at all) there is no capability to do that without breaking the law. (unless we live in a lawless society, which doesn't really exist, least of all for long) And there is no incentive to gain a government advantage if the government can't influence the market.
"that means corpos will just enslave us all in the free market,"
A market in which they can get a government to interfere in the market is not a free market, that is quite literally a fascist market, an extension of socialism. Or you could call it a corporate syndicalism, which is what fascism literally is as defined by Mussolini. (who based it on Marxist Syndicalists, if you actually cared about philosophic historicity)
"you are just proving your own arguments wrong"
By presenting no argumentation and claiming your worldview as fact by yourself. But who is the judge? By whose authority is that claim demonstrated? On what basis can you make such a claim?
"it means that there should just be no corpos, everything people controlled."
Only a fool believes people are capable to judge the lives of others. You can't tell me whats good for me and I can't tell you whats good for you of my own experience. I can tell you what is good for you based on an authority beyond me, but I have no authority to do such. And the same applies to every man, no government, no "peoples", to which you can not collectivize else you become a corporation, can control and regulate anything. Punishment is not preventative, its punitive, else its not punishment but abuse. Are you to whip your child to prevent him from stealing or killing? Why then am I punished for things I have never done?
By the way, Marx was a hate-filled racist psychopath that wanted most people dead, he had no love for the working class, he was part of the proletariat. Yeah its not an argument but given you want to use emotional pleas and "oh profit bad" then you should hear the objective emotional truth. By the way show me a system that doesn't require profit?
3
-
@godfather7339
"if corpos managed to infiltrate democratic governments"
You do realize the same people live in all systems right? There are no good humans, everybody (including you and me) is corrupt and infiltrates the systems they participate in with immoral principles to some degree. The entire point is to separate the reliance on corrupt actors executing their power on anyone beyond themselves. Absolute corrupts absolutely. (Which is recognized because man is evil) With government interventionism they are the strongest, not weakest, they can (and very well have) legally kill people without question, whereas without being in the government (like say the government isn't allowed to touch the market at all) there is no capability to do that without breaking the law. (unless we live in a lawless society, which doesn't really exist, least of all for long) And there is no incentive to gain a government advantage if the government can't influence the market.
"that means corpos will just enslave us all in the free market,"
A market in which they can get a government to interfere in the market is not a free market, that is quite literally a fascist market, an extension of socialism. Or you could call it a corporate syndicalism, which is what fascism literally is as defined by Mussolini. (who based it on Marxist Syndicalists, if you actually cared about philosophic historicity)
"you are just proving your own arguments wrong"
By presenting no argumentation and claiming your worldview as fact by yourself. But who is the judge? By whose authority is that claim demonstrated? On what basis can you make such a claim?
"it means that there should just be no corpos, everything people controlled."
Only a fool believes people are capable to judge the lives of others. You can't tell me whats good for me and I can't tell you whats good for you of my own experience. I can tell you what is good for you based on an authority beyond me, but I have no authority to do such. And the same applies to every man, no government, no "peoples", to which you can not collectivize else you become a corporation, can control and regulate anything. Punishment is not preventative, its punitive, else its not punishment but abuse. Are you to whip your child to prevent him from stealing or killing? Why then am I punished for things I have never done?
By the way, Marx was a hate-filled racist psychopath that wanted most people dead, he had no love for the working class, he was part of the proletariat. Yeah its not an argument but given you want to use emotional pleas and "oh profit bad" then you should hear the objective emotional truth. By the way show me a system that doesn't require profit?
3
-
@godfather7339
"if corpos managed to infiltrate democratic governments"
You do realize the same people live in all systems right? There are no good humans, everybody (including you and me) is corrupt and infiltrates the systems they participate in with immoral principles to some degree. The entire point is to separate the reliance on corrupt actors executing their power on anyone beyond themselves. Absolute corrupts absolutely. (Which is recognized because man is evil) With government interventionism they are the strongest, not weakest, they can (and very well have) legally kill people without question, whereas without being in the government (like say the government isn't allowed to touch the market at all) there is no capability to do that without breaking the law. (unless we live in a lawless society, which doesn't really exist, least of all for long) And there is no incentive to gain a government advantage if the government can't influence the market.
"that means corpos will just enslave us all in the free market,"
A market in which they can get a government to interfere in the market is not a free market, that is quite literally a fascist market, an extension of socialism. Or you could call it a corporate syndicalism, which is what fascism literally is as defined by Mussolini. (who based it on Marxist Syndicalists, if you actually cared about philosophic historicity)
"you are just proving your own arguments wrong"
By presenting no argumentation and claiming your worldview as fact by yourself. But who is the judge? By whose authority is that claim demonstrated? On what basis can you make such a claim?
"it means that there should just be no corpos, everything people controlled."
Only a fool believes people are capable to judge the lives of others. You can't tell me whats good for me and I can't tell you whats good for you of my own experience. I can tell you what is good for you based on an authority beyond me, but I have no authority to do such. And the same applies to every man, no government, no "peoples", to which you can not collectivize else you become a corporation, can control and regulate anything. Punishment is not preventative, its punitive, else its not punishment but abuse. Are you to whip your child to prevent him from stealing or killing? Why then am I punished for things I have never done?
By the way, Marx was a hate-filled racist psychopath that wanted most people dead, he had no love for the working class, he was part of the proletariat. Yeah its not an argument but given you want to use emotional pleas and "oh profit bad" then you should hear the objective emotional truth. By the way show me a system that doesn't require profit?
3
-
@jm56585 Because its full of leftoid communists and pedophiles who attack and blacklist you (and for most instances, ban you) for anything that isn't extremely left wing and "inclusive", criticize, banned/blacklisted, there is no free-speech in Fediverse instances, and pedophilia is always nearing the top of popular instances. (unless they filter them out, but they still end up popular, you just stop seeing them publicly then) They constantly call everything that disagrees with them racist, nazi, fascist, and capitalist, and you will never be able to federate with anything if you even take a moderate or "neutral" approach, all it takes is you not banning one right-wing post and your instance will be blacklisted by all of the big instances and probably most of the smaller ones. And the mods in every Fediverse instance I've seen are honestly even more horrible people then the reddit mods and admins and that's not a joke, banning people for nothing. And many instances share "twitter-style block" blacklists. (like when "big twitter folks" share blocklists around with each other without ever even interacting with members on the blocklist, instances tend to do the same) This all results in an even worse leftoid pedophile echo chamber then reddit.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2