/soy/ - Soyjaks

low effort bait go down

you and who? im sure i could gather you and whoever is stupid enough to agree with your message to join a fighting army to end up as a decapitated head attached to a fence post a tree branch

>>18430261
negated

>>18430262
bumped the thread award

>>18430262
cry more clittycel

Truthnuke

>>18430266
._.

>>18430273
kys fnf commiepedotroon irl slopjak shitskin faggot from lesotho

do dis

stop giving it reppeys splintecuck offsite spic niggerfaggots

>>18430274
where did you get that from? i don't think you understand what you're talking about considering your a massive retard that can't read books, i bet it took you 10 minutes staring at the keyboard looking at the individual keys on the keyboard parsing that little sentence for me

>>18430287
I read books you jartycuck. Just yesterday i read ten pages of sherlock holmes

>>18430283
sharty is not your safespace, clittycel. you are in the minority

>>18430297
most cucked mentality award

>>18430298
leakiest clitty award

You define "rate of progress" by enabling things that hault it.

>>18430302
Liar award; it's 14 cm.

>>18430293
that might be the biggest lie i've ever heard in my life, you haven't read shit in your entire life. your kinda stupid you know that? i think you're better off belonging in hamburger meat, or something like that. you're really retarded, i'd kill you myself and turn you into processed burger meat myself given the chance

they are pathetic geg
>

>>18430306
bumped the thread award

>>18430312

Dont know how to supersage

>>18430316
type 'supersage', lower case and joined. You have to wait a minute to use it again

Didn't work

>>18430309
that's a man

>>18430309

Nigga she's ugly as fuck, get better examples of bnwo

>>18430306
you ideologically oppose progress clittycel. stop projecting

>>18430343

I will give u a chance to stop baiting and define progress and explain how your ideology causes progress

Continue

>>18430352
The fact that you’re demanding a definition of progress while refusing to establish a framework for evaluating it is already rather telling.

Progress is not some ideologically neutral, self-evident concept. Progress toward what, measured by which criteria, and at whose expense? Increased GDP alongside worsening inequality? Technological advancement alongside environmental degradation? Greater national wealth alongside declining living standards for ordinary people? These are precisely the kinds of contradictions that require dialectical analysis, not a simplistic demand for a dictionary definition.

From a left-wing perspective, progress can be understood as the expansion of human freedom, material security, social equality, and collective control over the conditions of our lives. My argument would be that left-wing politics advances these aims by challenging entrenched hierarchies, questioning the concentration of economic power, and advocating institutions that distribute the benefits of social production more broadly.

You’re welcome to disagree with that framework. But if you want an actual debate, you’ll need to do more than demand that I define my terms as though you’ve already established yours. Explain what you consider progress, identify the criteria by which you measure it, and demonstrate why your preferred political and economic arrangements achieve those outcomes better.

Otherwise, you aren’t challenging my argument. You’re simply demanding that I do all the conceptual work while reserving for yourself the privilege of acting as its examiner. And calling that a “chance” for me to stop baiting you doesn’t make it an argument.

>>18430362

Yeah you're a fucking retard who believes social equity for all is going to generate the same results on both ends.

Explain how importing 2 billion indian janitors and beaners is going to benefit society

Untill you prove that I'm not reading anything else you have to say.

Retarded chat-gpt warrior

>>18430368
keeping the thread up award

>>18430368
You’ve managed to conflate social equity, immigration, labor economics, and demographic caricatures into one incoherent objection, and then declared that I must answer your framing before you’ll engage with anything else. That isn’t an argument; it’s an ultimatum from someone who apparently mistakes refusing to engage with a rebuttal for having refuted it.

Nobody serious is arguing that social equity means everyone produces identical outcomes regardless of circumstances. Equality of human worth is not a claim of identical ability, effort, or productivity. You’re attacking a proposition I never made because it’s considerably easier than addressing the one I actually did.

As for immigration, the question is not whether importing an absurd hypothetical number of people overnight would be beneficial. Obviously, population growth at that scale would overwhelm housing, infrastructure, and public services. That tells us precisely nothing about the effects of immigration at realistic levels, under specific labor-market conditions, with particular fiscal policies. You’ve chosen an intentionally ridiculous hypothetical because it allows you to avoid discussing the actual mechanisms involved.

Immigration can expand the labor force, increase aggregate production, fill labor shortages, support an aging population, and generate tax revenue. It can also intensify competition for certain jobs, put pressure on housing and public services, and distribute economic gains unevenly. The effects depend on the scale and composition of migration, the receiving economy, and the policies governing labor, housing, and integration. A serious analysis considers those trade-offs instead of pretending one hypothetical settles the entire question.

And notice the rather convenient asymmetry in your reasoning: you demand that I prove an entire political framework correct before you’ll read another sentence, yet you’ve offered no evidence that your own assumptions are correct. You’ve substituted ethnic stereotypes for economic analysis and confidence for demonstration.

If you want to argue that immigration harms particular workers, identify the workers, specify the mechanism, and provide evidence. If you want to argue that social equity produces inferior economic outcomes, define the outcome and establish the causal relationship. Those are perfectly legitimate arguments to make.

But if your position cannot survive being examined beyond an intentionally absurd hypothetical, then the problem isn't that I haven't explained myself. It's that you've confused issuing a challenge with meeting one.

>>18430379
AI award

You are arguing for something I was never arguing for in the first place.
You can use chat-gpt to justify how what you are explaining is a true set of freedom, you can argue how immigration has led to progress, these are claims you yourself have made, you have yet to cite your sources on anything you are saying.

Get off chat-gpt

You cant even configure ur ai to answer me correctly, I never made any claims, I've asked you to justify yours.

>>18430352
Why do I need to do that that when opposing progress and change is the literal definition of your ideology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

>>18430379
You cannot impose the idea of freedom whilst living under a set of conventional rules and laws that you are expected to follow.

: The condition of being free of restraints, especially the ability to act without control or interference by another or by circumstance.

I don't care about gdp, I don't care about progress, I don't care about government, nor am I anywhere on the social axis.

I want you to explain how this is freedom.

>>18430400
clittycels our response?

>>18430400

Not clicking on a link from you, explain what it is.

>>18430403
Yes, we are reactionary. What's the problem with that?

>>18430259 (OP)
>FUCK YOU YOU STUPID FUCKING NIGGER YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE ME ASHAMED OF MY 32 PERCENT WHITE HERITAGE YOU VANTABLACK CUCK IM GOING TO NOW SHART UP THIS RANDOM PLACE BECAUSE YOU MADE ME LEAK

You listed a whole bunch of probabilities that could or could not happen without actually citing a source for them.

Then the moment you finally take off the chat-gpt, you try to categorize my belief system into one that I have 0 aligning with.

>>18430389
>>18430392
>>18430402
You’ve handed me a dictionary definition and called it a refutation. Let’s use it.

“Free of restraints, the ability to act without control or interference by another.” Apply that standard consistently and you get a state of nature, where the strongest person’s freedom to take your property, your labor, or your life is absolute, and yours to resist is whatever you can physically manage. Hobbes made this point in 1651. Total absence of rules doesn’t maximize freedom, it hands it to whoever is most able to interfere with everyone else. Your definition even contains the problem: “interference by another” includes a stranger who can freely interfere with you because no law stops him.

That’s why no serious tradition, left or right, treats freedom as the absence of all rules. Rules that restrain others from coercing you are what make your freedom real. You can walk down the street without being robbed because a law restrains the person who’d rob you. That restraint on him is a gain in freedom for you.

The left’s argument is that the same logic applies to economic life. If someone’s only options are accept this wage or lose housing, formal freedom of choice sits on top of very little actual freedom. Isaiah Berlin drew this distinction between negative and positive liberty seventy years ago, and it’s the first thing anyone reads on the subject. You’re defending one half of it as if the other half didn’t exist.

Notice also what you just did. You said you don’t care about progress, GDP, government, or any position on the social axis, and you want me to justify mine. That isn’t a position. It’s a seat in the audience with a clipboard. You also said you never made any claims, but earlier you asserted that social equity generates the same results for everyone and that immigration is a catastrophe. Those are claims, and you haven’t supported either.

As for “get off ChatGPT,” you’ve now spent three posts on who typed this instead of what it says. If the argument is wrong, show where. So far you’ve shown a dictionary entry, a demand, and an accusation.

If you want to argue that freedom means zero restraint, say so explicitly, and then explain why you aren’t in favor of abolishing laws against theft and assault. If you don’t, we agree that some restraints are justified, and the only remaining question is which ones expand freedom and which shrink it. That’s the actual debate, and I’m ready to have it.

>>18430400
geg owned that pissbaby

>>18430405
>>18430406
not an argument

>>18430400
Progress is a false god

“Free of restraints, the ability to act without control or interference by another.” Apply that standard consistently and you get a state of nature, where the strongest person’s freedom to take your property, your labor, or your life is absolute, and yours to resist is whatever you can physically manage. Hobbes made this point in 1651. Total absence of rules doesn’t maximize freedom, it hands it to whoever is most able to interfere with everyone else. Your definition even contains the problem: “interference by another” includes a stranger who can freely interfere with you because no law stops him.

That’s why no serious tradition, left or right, treats freedom as the absence of all rules. Rules that restrain others from coercing you are what make your freedom real. You can walk down the street without being robbed because a law restrains the person who’d rob you. That restraint on him is a gain in freedom for you.


This is not a gain of freedom for me nor him, if he gets the upperhand over me then he is decided the victor, if I gain the upperhand over him then thats my victory.

Freedom entails a state of not being controlled by another nation or political power; political independence, this applies to law aswell you dumbass

50 reppies on the most generic bait imaginable jsid

>>18430431
‘gated

>>18430444
un'gated

Pro-immigration fags should have no qualms about raising the minimum wage of worker permits to the median wage or they are just admitting that they want cheap indentured servants

Mf is talking about "social equity" and "pro immigrgation" moralfagging when immigration is just hiring and underpaying indian h1-b workers to slave away for their jewish overlords

Fix ur chat-gpt bot, you've been silent for a while you dumbass nigger

>>18430475
TSMT

Holy raisin nusois do not know how to sage

He missed his monthly grok AI payment

agreed