-MenO-

If you don't understand sarcasm, that's on you.

@PositivFuturist You may be in the minority Andy. Its been my experience that both sides straw man the other.

There's such an asymmetry on the left and right in terms of theory of mind. We (the political right) can perfectly articulate every single left/leftist talking point - we can explain their entire worldview in a way they would agree with. They can't do the same for us - not even remotely.

Long overdue in my opinion... this needs to happen at this point

@bytemaster7 🧑‍🍳 ?

Eth block 5,250,879 doing 74,510 txns/s and 3.828 Ggas/s on M5 Max... does that mean anything to anyone... 🤓

Hello Julia, sans aucune ironie, c'est top que tu prennes le temps de te renseigner. Mais le problème quand on lit Marx aujourd'hui, c'est qu'on prend pour acquis sa prémisse de départ, alors qu'elle a été démontée scientifiquement il y a plus de 150 ans. Toute la pensée de Marx repose sur la théorie de la valeur-travail. L'idée que la valeur d'un bien vient de la quantité de travail nécessaire pour le produire. Si tu acceptes cette prémisse, alors oui, tout son raisonnement tient. Le capitaliste "vole" la plus-value du travailleur, l'exploitation est mathématique, la révolution est inévitable. Sauf qu'en 1871, trois économistes (Menger en Autriche, Jevons en Angleterre, Walras en Suisse) découvrent indépendamment la même chose : la valeur n'est pas objective, elle est subjective et marginale. Un verre d'eau dans le désert vaut une fortune. Le même verre à côté d'une rivière ne vaut rien. Le travail incorporé est identique. Donc le travail ne détermine pas la valeur. C'est le consommateur qui valorise un bien selon son utilité marginale dans un contexte donné. Exemple concret : tu peux passer 1000 heures à tricoter un pull moche que personne ne veut. Selon Marx, ce pull a énormément de valeur (beaucoup de travail incorporé). Selon la réalité, il ne vaut rien. Parce que personne n'en veut. À l'inverse, Bernard Arnault crée des milliards de valeur non pas parce qu'il "exploite" mais parce qu'il a su anticiper et organiser des désirs humains à grande échelle. La valeur est créée par la coordination, pas extraite par le vol. Cette découverte (la révolution marginaliste) a invalidé tout l'édifice marxiste. Pas pour des raisons idéologiques, pour des raisons scientifiques. C'est pour ça que plus aucun département d'économie sérieux au monde n'enseigne Marx comme un cadre d'analyse valide. On l'enseigne en histoire de la pensée. Maintenant, le truc important. Si ton intention en lisant Marx c'est d'aider les pauvres (c'est une intention noble), alors tu vas être surprise par ce qui suit. Regarde les chiffres de la Banque mondiale. En 1820, 90% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9%. Cette chute historique ne s'est PAS produite dans les pays qui ont appliqué Marx. Elle s'est produite dans les pays qui ont libéralisé leur économie. Chine post-1978, Vietnam post-1986, Inde post-1991, Pologne post-1989. À chaque fois qu'un pays libéralise, des centaines de millions de gens sortent de la pauvreté en une génération. À chaque fois qu'un pays applique Marx (URSS, Cambodge, Corée du Nord, Venezuela), c'est la famine et les goulags. Ce n'est pas une opinion, c'est l'expérience la plus massive jamais menée en sciences sociales. Plusieurs milliards de cobayes humains, sur un siècle. Donc paradoxalement, si tu aimes vraiment les pauvres, la position la plus cohérente n'est pas d'être marxiste. C'est d'être pour la liberté économique. Parce que c'est empiriquement la seule chose qui a jamais sorti massivement les gens de la misère. Pour creuser, je te recommande trois lectures qui vont changer ta vision : "La Loi" de Frédéric Bastiat (court, lumineux, gratuit en ligne) "La Route de la Servitude" de Hayek "Économie en une leçon" de Henry Hazlitt Bonne lecture, et vraiment chapeau de chercher à comprendre plutôt que de rester dans tes certitudes. C'est rare.

@APompliano @financedystop America is socialist? Much wow

The rise of socialism in America is a direct result of this chart.

@CosmicSkeptic Sadly, I don't find the analogy to be very helpful.

I’m getting a lot of hate for this reel. What do you think? (P.S.: if you say “but we have evidence for dads I believe you have missed the point.)

@mattyglesias idk if this is a defense of Trump... seems like you are OK with his aging mind. It was a valid concern when Biden was at the helm, but now its not? What is the difference?Why the double standard?

If you take the TDS glasses off, he clearly meant Biden rather than Obama and JetBlue rather than People Express, and then you’re left with the fact that the elderly president’s memory is failing him somewhat in a normal way for a person of his age.

@GuntherEagleman Look at these democrats waving their flags

HISTORICAL FACTS THE LEFT HATES - The Republican Party was founded to end slavery. - The first Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1865 by Democrats. Don’t let the Left gaslight you. The party of slavery, segregation, and the KKK was always the Democrat Party.

@OperHealAmerica Jews will? interesting claim. What if they don't?

Muslims do not believe that Jesus is God. Jews will. It’s that simple.

@adamndsmith sounds like schizophrenia to me

“I often talk to the homeless and they tell me they get given a house”

@ApostateProphet @MMetaphysician Why does Judaism claim there's only one? OP's strawman aside, I think its intellectually honest to point out that one claim does not have more weight than another.

No. This is a nonsensical argument as it has been explained to you by many people. Christians believe that God is by NATURE Triune: one undivided divine essence in three Persons. You are treating "God" like a generic countable "god" and counting three instances of "god" by classical identity while disregarding what Christians believe about God's nature. This has been specifically and explicitly rejected in core Christian doctrine. That is why your argument makes sense to you but it actually doesn't. You don't get to force your misrepresentation of what Christians believe and then win the argument. If you think you can, good luck arguing with yourself or a wall.

CHALLENGE FOR TRINITARIANS: IS IT LOGICALLY POSSIBLE THAT THERE ARE 3 GODS? 1 There are exactly three gods, counted by classical identity, if and only if there are exactly three distinct things that are God, and nothing else is God. 2 The Father is God. 3 The Son is God. 4 The Holy Spirit is God. 5 The Father is not identical to the Son. 6 The Father is not identical to the Holy Spirit. 7The Son is not identical to the Holy Spirit. 8 Anything that is God is identical to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. 9 Therefore, there are exactly three distinct things that are God, and nothing else is God. 10 It is logically and linguistically possible to interpret “God” with a count-noun reading and count its instances by classical identity. 11 If it is logically and linguistically possible to interpret “God” with a count-noun reading and count its instances by classical identity, and there are exactly three distinct things that are God and nothing else is God, then it is logically and linguistically possible that there are exactly three gods, counted by classical identity. 12 Therefore, it is logically and linguistically possible that there are exactly three gods, counted by classical identity. Definition: C_I^*(G) = “G is interpreted with a count-noun reading of ‘God’, and its instances are counted by classical identity” ◇ₗₗ = it is logically and linguistically possible that (i.e., consistent with the laws of logic AND a legitimate use of language) (1) N_I(G,=3) ↔ ∃x∃y∃z(Gx ∧ Gy ∧ Gz ∧ x ≠ y ∧ x ≠ z ∧ y ≠ z ∧ ∀w(Gw → (w = x ∨ w = y ∨ w = z))) (2) Gf (3) Gs (4) Gh (5) f ≠ s (6) f ≠ h (7) s ≠ h (8) ∀w(Gw → (w = f ∨ w = s ∨ w = h)) (9) ∃x∃y∃z(Gx ∧ Gy ∧ Gz ∧ x ≠ y ∧ x ≠ z ∧ y ≠ z ∧ ∀w(Gw → (w = x ∨ w = y ∨ w = z))) (10) ◇ₗₗ C_I^*(G) (11) ◇ₗₗ C_I^*(G) ∧ (9) → ◇ₗₗ N_I(G,=3) (12) ◇ₗₗ N_I(G,=3) P. S. You don’t get to rule out an interpretation just because it leads to an unwanted conclusion. You have to show it is linguistically or logically impossible or admit that on the Trinity it is possible that there are 3 gods.

@schwartzbWSJ @alyrose hahahahahahahahahahahaha

SCOOP: The Trump administration and Spirit Airlines are nearing a deal where the U.S. government would put up to $500 million into Spirit Airlines stock warrants to try to save the company, leading to a potential significant stake in the company. Team effort w/ @alyrose and @AndrewScurria wsj.com/business/airli…

The world right now in one picture

@DLoesch @FoxNews Scott Adams argued the opposite when it came to sarcasm... Fun fact.

@FoxNews Sarcasm requires intelligence, which is why everyone knows Murphy wasn't being sarcastic.

JUST IN: Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy doesn't say he has any regrets after furious backlash to his X post calling reports of Iranian ships slipping past the U.S. naval blockade "awesome." "I guess I just have to be more careful about sarcasm on Twitter," Murphy exclusively told FOX News.

@ConceptualJames So Fifa giving Trump a trophy is communism? Good to know

Communists prop each other up and give each other fake awards to make them seem impressive to people who don't know who they are.

@MeghanMcCain that touched a wound... he is right tho.. sadly so

Fuck right off.

@TheDesertLynx hahahaha

Guys, I have a new DeFi yield product idea, let me know what you think: 🪙You deposit USDC permanently (you can never withdraw it, maybe you can sell your position to someone else though) 🪙You earn yield in USDC (currently 11.5% APY but it can be raised or lowered by the security council/multisig later to 3.65% or lower) 🪙The security council can arbitrarily and indefinitely pause yield payouts, but don't worry, the amount you're owed eventually keeps compounding 🪙If the protocol becomes insolvent, you get your portion of whatever's left after VCs are made whole If I launch this, will you buy in? 🤔

@danielvehe quienes son: las gente de hive? que es eso?

👀

@TrevorSheatz Reading the Bible without someone filtering it out for me, is how I stopped believing altogether. So I would say, you are almost spot on.

When people read the Bible for themselves, they often leave Catholicism. They see that many church dogmas actually go against the clear teaching of the Scriptures, or aren't supported by Scripture in any clear way.

@ThePapaGut He’s the final boss of Dunning-Kruger

Andrew Wilson is full of cognitive dissonance