• 0 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: April 20th, 2023

help-circle


  • davitztoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldTrump project
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    24 days ago

    Sorry, but I fail to see how we can categorize a mass shooting as “Jack shit happening”. I would actually say that mass shooters are an example that strongly supports OPs sentiment that people who write huge manifestos tend to take action. Maybe they don’t achieve all the lofty goals set out in said manifesto, but that seems like it would be small comfort to the people who got shot.




  • He’s free to discuss this article any way that he thinks is interesting. Just because he found it helpful to point out the bias in this case doesn’t obligate him to do it in any other cases. He doesn’t owe you anything.

    Also, responding to someone noting the reputation of your source with what amounts to "ARE YOU ACCUSING ME OF BREAKING THE RULES? ARE YOU SAYING CONSERVATIVE LEANING SOURCES ARE ILLEGAL?” is basically the textbook definition of a wildly defensive response lmao.



  • davitztoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldYou fools!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I would say that the meme does a good job of producing a Gettier Case, which many philosophers recognize as valid counter examples that disprove the Justified True Belief definition of knowledge, indicating that a complete definition of knowledge requires more than those three elements.

    Philosophers (aside from skeptics) were mostly agreed on JTB as a straightforward and elegant definition of knowledge for most of history and they have struggled to reach a new consensus after Gettier and instead are left with a hodgepodge of competing definitions. This could be perceived as something that might frustrate a philosopher, and that I think is why the meme positions this as a sort of “prank” for philosophers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem?wprov=sfla1


  • davitztoA Boring Dystopia@lemmy.worldGet rid of landlords...
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    The difference is scale. If a house is a safe investment that makes a reliable 10% return on investment before tax and then you pay 1% in property tax, the remaining 9% is still an extremely attractive return so the investor appetite for housing remains unchanged by this small tax. Change the tax to 9% and you’re only left with 1% return, suddenly other investment options become much more attractive. Once the investors have left, prices can normalize around the price tolerances of people actually intending to live in the space.

    This is a simplification using made up numbers, but the overall point is that the mere fact that property taxes as they currently exist (with very low rates) allow investors to run amok, that doesn’t mean that a more substantial LVT couldn’t change that.

    Obviously taxing in a way that makes rentals completely non viable is probably not a perfect solution, and raising the tax dramatically all at once before prices have a chance to react could be catastrophic, but with a careful incremental approach gradually raising LVT and displacing other taxes (starting with regressive ones like sales tax) with those revenues based on observed outcomes, progress can be made to a better equilibrium where people who want to own a home to live in have better opportunities to do so, people who want to rent still have some options, people aren’t getting rich by ransoming housing at extortionate prices, and more investment capital is funneled toward productive enterprise over plots of dirt, strengthening the actual economy.

    I think it’s probable that the Georgist dream of displacing all taxation with LVT may not be achievable due to diminishing returns on raising the tax as property values react, but I think moving in the direction of Georgist policy could absolutely usher in some better social outcomes



  • Yes, but orders of magnitude less often than random members of the public “doing their own research”. And looking at the consensus of the experts rather than individual experts the error rate is further orders of magnitude below that. You need to let go of the idea that information being a good basis for decisions means that it’s “absolute truth”, because only religion has that; what we have is some sources of information that are less likely to be wrong than all the others, and that’s unfortunately the best you can get.





  • davitztoMemes@lemmy.mlPlato
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    To oversimplify, it’s a metaphor about what it’s like to go through life relying only on your senses and not using reason to question or analyze the deeper meanings behind your surface impressions. The story goes on to discuss a prisoner who escapes the cave and gets a taste of true reality, that prisoner is meant to represent a philosopher. When the escaped prisoner returns and tells the others of what he’s seen, they reject his claims saying how absurd it would be to believe that there’s anything more than just the shadows. I think in this day and age it’s easy to guess what that interaction represents, but Plato had a particular bone to pick about this since his mentor had essentially been executed for questioning various things.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave?wprov=sfla1