I assume you're a rational person with an ability to think critically, so why are you dealing in absolutes when it comes to the right? There may be politicians on the right that want essentially oppress others for their own personal gain, but there just as well can be and are those on the left who want to do the same. Nothing is so black and white. Focusing on each side as a collective instead of addressing people who identify with them as individuals isn't conducive to understanding the nature of each side with clarity.

Regardless, that position doesn't explain in any way how advocating for civility is somehow lacking in wisdom. You think it's because whichever side is uncivilized has an advantage over the side that isn't? I don't believe that at all for the very reason I laid out at the bottom of my post. All this hate and vitriol is radicalizing people at an alarming rate, driving away moderates who can help rein the radicals back in, and contributing to a growing divide within society that absolutely has the power to destabilize it, if history has taught us anything.

This isn't about some kumbaya cliche hippie nonsense, this is about upholding certain principles that make up the fabric of civilization. Responding to radicals by becoming radical in the opposite way may allow you to "win" against them for now, but what kind of society are you going to create in the process? And what is going to stop the other side from responding in kind and winning in the future?

These people that you seem to hate so much on the right, there are millions of them and they aren't going anywhere. Unless you want some violent authoritarian revolution in which you force them out of society, you have to deal with the fact that they are here and have the same power that you do to impact the way your country runs. Collectivizing them as scum of the earth instead of observing and confronting them as individuals isn't going to help sway anyone on their side, and more importantly it turns away moderates, who are more likely to see things your way, and can actually give your side a real advantage.

I don't expect that this is something we will come to an agreement on. It's really disheartening to see that so many on either side think this way.

I would like to say that this tendency towards incivility in politics is an absolutely terrible idea in my eyes. Our society is becoming increasingly polarized and divided, and this idea that people should be uncivilized in their opposition is only going to exacerbate that.

Our civilization was beginning to overcome tribalism, but it looks like we're taking a good number of steps back in that regard, and it's just sad af.

I do think people should have the right to be uncivil, so long as they aren't violent, but I wish more would advocate for less vitriol towards their opponents.

Inktober is always dope, but I can never bring myself to commit to it.

Pencil sketch of a demon girl head:

This looks way wackier than I thought it was going to be.

Quote from: Aether on October 03, 2018, 06:48:18 PM

How does it not stifle the ability to invest if the vast majority of money that they would have to invest is taken from them? It doesn't remove their ability to, but it drastically reduces the amount of money they have to.

Because investors will always invest the amount of money they deem acceptable depending on the investment prospects. Mark Cuban of Shark Tank never shuts up about how taxes have literally nothing to do with his investment ability; they don't even cross his mind when potentially making an investment.

And there are (should be) tax breaks for those who actually invest their money.

Quote

I don't see how you could have such a caricature of an idea of a rich person without being a little more distrusting of bureaucrats.

I'm not so naive as to think politics is working as it should, but at least there's an air of legitimacy to the system and we, the people, have some say as to what our governments actually spend the money on. Politicians are forced to work for the people, there is no such incentive for billionaires. Relying on a few benevolent kings to fix our system is absolutely not the answer.

I can't help but find it a little irritating that your problem with the government is that it spends too much on war, so your solution is to trust a few billionaires who made their wealth exploiting other people to take care of you. It's just absolutely absurd. Tax the rich, get out of debt, take care of your citizens. That's what the agenda should be, and if it isn't, vote in the people most likely to get you as close to that goal as possible.

I will grant you that America is an absolute social shithole right now that can't agree on anything so the prospect of actual change seems impossible. That's why I'm trying to keep the subject hypothetical rather than "Well look how the government spends its money right now!" Well no, we're talking idealistically, because that's how rational thought works: you figure out the ideal scenario, and then work to make it reality.

Maybe my layman brain just can't comprehend it, but taking away 90% of a person's wealth leaves them an unquestionably lower amount of money to invest with. I wouldn't figure a tax increase of 10 or even 20% to have that much of an impact on how much they are willing to invest, but 90% is nearly all of their earnings. If someone earns 100 million dollars in a single year and plans to invest around 10% of that, they would be left with very little comparatively, unless they receive a very significant tax break for investing.

I don't trust billionaires really any more so than I do politicians on a general level. It's the difference between the nature of the free market and government that influences my opinion on this. The commercial world allows for individuals to have a greater impact on society through innovation in a shorter amount of time than government does.

We desperately need to sort out the rampant cronyism within our capitalist society, but that cronyism is wedded to money and corruption in politics. There are at least a few of the rich that are helping to improve society, and funnel money back into the lower rungs, and they are able to do so more effectively because they don't have to jump though so many legislative hoops as the state and because the individual has more power within the market. I don't believe that should be taken away from them in favor of letting the state take care of it right now.

It's not ideal all but, you're right, I'm not looking at this idealistically.  I'm just more of a "here and now" kind of person. Tax the wealthiest people more, sure. I just don't think it should be 90%. It doesn't seem like we're gonna be able to agree on that, I guess.

Quote from: Aether on October 03, 2018, 04:32:06 PM

My government spends the vast majority of its collected taxes on its over-bloated defense budget so it can continue dropping bombs on the third world, and executing regime changes. I don't have much faith in the state to use the taxes it collects to most effectively benefit the citizens it governs.

That's a problem too but you can cross that bridge when you get there.

Quote

I also wouldn't presume that there are no wealthy people that have a desire to innovate, and help funnel money back down to the lower rungs of society. The state is a collective of people that follows a system that takes a long time to change. A single billionaire can fund innovation much faster and with more freedom than the state can. Space X is a good example of that.

Elon Musk infamously underpays his employees, same with the other guy who owns Amazon. Innovation isn't as important as guaranteeing a high quality of life for a country's citizens.

Innovation is what guarantees that quality of life continues to improve into the future. Yeah, they should do more to provide their employees, but that doesn't mean their ability to invest should be stifled.

Btw amazon is actually increasing its minimum wage to 15 dollars here in the US. Apparently Bezos is trying to set a precedent for other corporations to follow.

I would support higher taxes for the top rungs of society if they were better spent, but I don't trust my government to not funnel nearly all of that money into the military industrial complex. Not 95% though. I still think innovation should still be allowed through private investment, and not just through government funding/subsidy.

I think the private sector needs to invest more into the welfare of society, and maybe there are new laws that can help with that, but I think there still needs to be room for it to thrive as well because investors' desire to make more money funds innovation, and I don't trust the state to fund it for the benefit of the average citizen.

Humility is something I value greatly.

Sure, violence doesn't persuade people to your side, but the point is to persuade fence sitters not racists.

and where do you get "it's technically subjective" from this

it's subjective insofar as someone could easily go "murder is okay but that's just my opinion"

whereas i could also say "2+2=5, in my opinion"

does the ability to append any statement with "in my opinion" at the end mean that everything is subjective, or is that a needlessly tenuous way to look at the world

I'd say it's subjective because it isn't quantified by reality. The universe doesn't have laws on what is good or bad. Those concepts don't even exist beyond our ability as sentient beings to conceptualize them. I'd say math is different because it's a system we've created to measure and understand things that actually are quantified by reality i.e. the laws of physics.

Morality is inexorably connected to concepts that do not exist beyond our conception of them. The only way I could see morality as objective is if it was defined by the absolute most effective way to eliminate suffering instead of the nature of good and evil. If that is how you are trying to define morality then I would say yes, that concept is objective even if none of us are wise enough to know what truly is the most effective way to eliminate suffering. However, I understand morality to be defined by the nature of good and evil. I would say that there is a kernel of objectivity that exists within the concept of morality and that is the nature of suffering.

I don't expect you to see it that way, though. It very well may just be that we understand the concept of what morality actually is differently. idk. .

Def the blades. I liked how you could customize the color of the guide blade.

Quote from: Aether on September 26, 2018, 05:33:27 PM

Also do you ever get the issue where you try to draw with your stylus on your tablet and the cursor will be on another monitor? I have checked my settings and it should be mapped to my tablet but any time i start drawing it switches over to another monitor... I end up having to turn off my other monitors just to get it to work properly.

I had an issue like this where my cursor will not map properly with my dual monitor setup, but it only happens in Photoshop for some reason. I clone my main monitor onto my tablet because for some reason if I set it up to act as a third monitor the cursor is assigned to my second monitor instead of my tablet monitor. For some reason though, I've had an a issue appear from time to time where my tablet will be mapped to both monitors at the same time even though I'vet set it to only be mapped to my main monitor. And this only happens when Photoshop is the active window. I have no idea what causes it and the only way to fix it is to uninstall and reinstall the driver.

I'd do it for the experience if it was something I was interested in, and only for as long as It felt worth it. So long as it was something I could handle on top of everything else.

Hollywood seems like too much ideology and not enough entertainment these days.

Put a bandage over it very firmly to keep it from getting rubbed constantly. Replace it at lest once a day and disinfect when you do.