Go green
Tags: politics
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
87 comments displayed.
#10
-
fukkentyranitar ONLINE (04/27/2015) [-] 
Better than nothing. You get a clean landscape and some money toward the infrastructure. Win/Win.
#3
-
economicfreedom (04/27/2015) [-] 
So property being privately owned creates an incentive for the owner to maintain the property. Even if by maintaining it he is tricking the locals to clean it for him.
#5 to #3
-
agronimo (04/27/2015) [-] Agreed, but it also gives the owner free hand if he wants to sell the ground to a construction company for them to cover everything up with concrete, apartament blocks and golf courses. It's even more ****** up when it's the government who starts doing this kind of speculations
That's the point of the artist, given that he is spanish and here we have had a big deal of similar **** going on in the last two decades. We're just fed up with lies and tricks, matey
That's the point of the artist, given that he is spanish and here we have had a big deal of similar **** going on in the last two decades. We're just fed up with lies and tricks, matey
#22 to #3
-
greyhoundfd ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-] Given your name, it's pretty obvious where you fall economically, but there's something to be said for the idea of public ownership. Private ownership encourages the pursuit of profit, which means that things like the public park in the example might be used in ways that decrease the overall public utility, but increase the utility for the owner to an extent greater than other options.
This can often be the case, so I'd argue that we should focus on finding a way to have public ownership while granting an incentive for better management of the park.
This can often be the case, so I'd argue that we should focus on finding a way to have public ownership while granting an incentive for better management of the park.
#94 to #22
-
durkadurka (04/28/2015) [-] Well sure! That's why the video says that there's not a single "one size fits all" solution.
I favor private ownership in most cases, but there are definitely situations in which public ownership is the better outcome.
I favor private ownership in most cases, but there are definitely situations in which public ownership is the better outcome.
#23
-
anon (04/28/2015) [-] You know I never got why people objected to others doing seemingly selfless or good things but in reality they were doing if for another reason. Who the **** cares if he wants to sell it? He cleaned it up and made the world a little bit better, so he profited from it, so what. It's like when people complain about missionaries pushing their religion in third world countries, sure, they do, but they also give the people ******* food, water, and medical treatment. If I were starving to death and had aids I would gladly listen to some JWs for a sub and penicillin, hell, I would do it just for the sub. Maybe the idea is he got people to do it for free but again, so what, the job was done and things are better.
#53 to #23
-
imagangstapimp (04/28/2015) [-] Well think of it this way: Imagine if your friend bought a really ****** house for $1,000 (random number) and he asks you to come fix it up. He being a close friend, and you mainly wanting the satisfaction of repairing the house by yourself, you go do it for free. So after a month or two of hard work, the job is finally done: you turned a wreck into a damn fine living space. Congratulations! A few days later, he sells it for $100,000 (again, random number) and keeps the money to himself. He earned $99,900 from work that was entirely your own, and you earned $0. This is a pretty extreme example, but wouldn't you still wanted to be compensated for your work?
#93 to #23
-
anon (04/28/2015) [-]
People criticize missionaries for forcing a rigid belief-set, that isn't even being used in the Western world. If someone came up to you and said that AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse, you would laugh at him, but people in the Third World don't know better, and that's one of the reasons why AIDS is so rampant in Africa.
That's doing more harm than good. Not saying that all missionaries do this.
That's doing more harm than good. Not saying that all missionaries do this.
#50 to #23
-
doctorprofessornv ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-] Because people (especially politicians and social activists) like to put their personal sense of morality and 'good intentions' before actual results and growth.
#9
-
gameofpwned (04/27/2015) [-]
I still want the land to be clean, even if somebody is just going to turn around and sell it.
#84 to #48
-
anon (04/28/2015) [-] Let's just take a second here to actually look at things in a sensible way, instead of through the lens of mass hysteria.
Valve is a company. Whatever you might think, it does not exist in a vacuum; digital distribution is a rapidly growing market and Steam already has some credible competition from places like GOG and Origin. If Valve wants to keep Steam "on top" as the most popular digital distribution site, it NEEDS to keep expanding the services it offers. And if it wants to do that, it needs money.
This is why they're experimenting, trying to identify areas that could possibly become additional profit channels. Modding is a huge part of Steam and the Steam Community, so that's why they implemented the payment features for Steam Workshop.
Now, most of the complaints levelled at this feature centre on the 75-25% split between Valve and the modders. I think it's important to point out that many of the mods on the Steam Workshop aren't available anywhere else. Valve is providing a platform for the modding community. Without Steam Workshop, many of these mods probably wouldn't even exist. This is why the percentage split is so big: Valve is providing a platform for modders to upload and make modded content available to the VAST amount of people who use Steam, and browse the Workshop.
In return for providing this hugely popular platform, you'd have to be pretty dense not to realise that Valve is probably entitled to a large cut of the potential profits a mod could generate.
"But the modders need that money!"
The short answer is: They don't. Most modders are making mods FOR FREE. To be perfectly honest, 25% of the profit looks pretty good compared to 0%.
Secondly, it's not like EVERYONE is suddenly going to start charging for mods. Plenty of people will continue providing free mods regardless of whether or not they CAN charge for it.
I hate to say that the people flipping their **** over this are acting like entitled twats...
...But the're acting like entitled twats.
Seriously. You are not entitled to free content, especially when it's being facilitated by a BUSINESS that wants to make a PROFIT.
Valve is a company. Whatever you might think, it does not exist in a vacuum; digital distribution is a rapidly growing market and Steam already has some credible competition from places like GOG and Origin. If Valve wants to keep Steam "on top" as the most popular digital distribution site, it NEEDS to keep expanding the services it offers. And if it wants to do that, it needs money.
This is why they're experimenting, trying to identify areas that could possibly become additional profit channels. Modding is a huge part of Steam and the Steam Community, so that's why they implemented the payment features for Steam Workshop.
Now, most of the complaints levelled at this feature centre on the 75-25% split between Valve and the modders. I think it's important to point out that many of the mods on the Steam Workshop aren't available anywhere else. Valve is providing a platform for the modding community. Without Steam Workshop, many of these mods probably wouldn't even exist. This is why the percentage split is so big: Valve is providing a platform for modders to upload and make modded content available to the VAST amount of people who use Steam, and browse the Workshop.
In return for providing this hugely popular platform, you'd have to be pretty dense not to realise that Valve is probably entitled to a large cut of the potential profits a mod could generate.
"But the modders need that money!"
The short answer is: They don't. Most modders are making mods FOR FREE. To be perfectly honest, 25% of the profit looks pretty good compared to 0%.
Secondly, it's not like EVERYONE is suddenly going to start charging for mods. Plenty of people will continue providing free mods regardless of whether or not they CAN charge for it.
I hate to say that the people flipping their **** over this are acting like entitled twats...
...But the're acting like entitled twats.
Seriously. You are not entitled to free content, especially when it's being facilitated by a BUSINESS that wants to make a PROFIT.
#21
-
anon (04/28/2015) [-] None of the people he was talking to are in the second panel are in the third panel!
#42 to #38
-
heartbleed ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-] He had other people clean it up so that he could sell it for more money.
#44 to #43
-
demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-] They wanted to clean it up. All those people got a good feeling in their heart, the feeling of doing a good deed. He gave them that good feeling.
#46 to #45
-
demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-] Is it greed to get a job? Is it greed to ask for a promotion? He uses his resources to benefit himself, his community, and his environment. That's not something an asshole would do.
#49 to #47
-
demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-] He's managing. Leaders above the work are a valuable resource.
#58 to #57
-
demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-] Unless he was too busy delegating to physically help. It's why a director doesn't handle the lights or cameras.
#59 to #58
-
nightmaren (04/28/2015) [-] Okay but he wouldn't have been delegating anything. The implication of the post is that he runs a campaign to motivate people to clean some lake or pond or whatever, and the people go and do it before he sells it. It doesn't show him "overseeing" or "delegating" the clean up itself; all it shows him doing is telling people they should want to do it.
#60 to #59
-
demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-] That's still not him doing anything bad. You're just saying he failed to do a good thing when given the opportunity, but he never did anything bad. We don't do a million good things every day.
#62 to #60
-
nightmaren (04/28/2015) [-] If he didn't help then I would say he did a bad thing, personally. Pretending to give a **** about something and speaking about it only to motivate others to do it for you so that you can make is a dick move imo unless he were to give some of the money from selling the place to the people who helped clean . Pretending to be passionate about something in order to exploit people are actually passionate about it to serve you is an asshole move, regardless of if it has a good effect or not.
Also whose not to say he's not planning on selling the figurative pond or lake to a resort or a hotel or a gas station or some **** like that and just tear up all the work the people did in the first place anyways?
Also whose not to say he's not planning on selling the figurative pond or lake to a resort or a hotel or a gas station or some **** like that and just tear up all the work the people did in the first place anyways?
#63 to #62
-
demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-] I disagree. You're literally saying that if you have an opportunity do a good thing, and you don't, that you do a bad thing. You literally have every chance to do good things every day, but you don't, so by your logic everything you do is bad. And who says he's pretending to be passionate? He wants his land to be clean, and went through the trouble of getting the people on his side - he's clearly passionate.
And you can't assume bad about him that wasn't stated in the comic - I could say "what if he's a pedophile?". It changes the rules. If he was a pedophile, and the lake was where he rapes children, I'd say he's definitely doing something wrong in having the people clean up the evidence.
And you can't assume bad about him that wasn't stated in the comic - I could say "what if he's a pedophile?". It changes the rules. If he was a pedophile, and the lake was where he rapes children, I'd say he's definitely doing something wrong in having the people clean up the evidence.
#64 to #63
-
nightmaren (04/28/2015) [-] That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm not saying not doing good things is a bad thing. I'm saying exploiting people is a bad thing. I'm saying that actively manipulating people into doing **** for you for free because you're too cheap and lazy to do it yourself, or even ******* hire someone.
You're also assuming things about him that aren't mentioned in the comic. The reason this comic exists is to explain some of the faults of capitalism, or at least to show how the rich can abuse the poor, so I don't think your assessment that 'he's always owned the land and he wants to move but he wants to clean it up before he leaves because he's just so passionate about it and so he gathers the community together to clean it up before he sells it' is a fair one.
Yes, theoretically somebody could go through the four stages of this comic and be passionate about the lake and genuinely want the lake to be in a good condition before they sell it, and if that were the case I wouldn't think they were doing a bad thing, but that's not what this comic is about. This comic is about the people who do this without giving a **** , this is about the people who exploit others for their own profit.
You're also assuming things about him that aren't mentioned in the comic. The reason this comic exists is to explain some of the faults of capitalism, or at least to show how the rich can abuse the poor, so I don't think your assessment that 'he's always owned the land and he wants to move but he wants to clean it up before he leaves because he's just so passionate about it and so he gathers the community together to clean it up before he sells it' is a fair one.
Yes, theoretically somebody could go through the four stages of this comic and be passionate about the lake and genuinely want the lake to be in a good condition before they sell it, and if that were the case I wouldn't think they were doing a bad thing, but that's not what this comic is about. This comic is about the people who do this without giving a **** , this is about the people who exploit others for their own profit.
#66 to #64
-
demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-] And if we could agree to keep our responses short now, I'm tired and this isn't fun.
#65 to #64
-
demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-] You manipulate people all the time! Hiring someone is manipulation. Asking someone to do something is manipulation. And it's no more cheap for him to do that instead of hiring someone than it's cheap for you to eat leftovers instead of buying more food. He's just finding a different way to do something. Tom ******* Sawyer does it and he's a goddamn literary hero with his white fence.
And those people aren't being abused. They're being shown a problem and they chose to care about that problem, and they chose to fix that problem. And the guy is definitely passionate about the problem. He's passionate because he'll get more money for clean land than ****** land, and there's nothing wrong with that.
And those people aren't being abused. They're being shown a problem and they chose to care about that problem, and they chose to fix that problem. And the guy is definitely passionate about the problem. He's passionate because he'll get more money for clean land than ****** land, and there's nothing wrong with that.
#67 to #65
-
nightmaren (04/28/2015) [-] No, hiring someone to do something is consensual for lack of a better word , with all cards on the table. It's an agreement. Same thing when you ask someone to do something for you. They are agreeing to do something for you for your benefit. When someone gets a job, they are agreeing to do something to get paid.
When you run a campaign to motivate people into doing something, regardless of if it's a good thing or not, to get them to do something for free, that's exploitation. If the people really cared about the lake, they would have cleaned it themselves. If the guy said in his initial presentation "This is a job I could be simply paying other people to do, I'm going to pretend to give a **** about this thing and make it seem really important, so you think it's important enough to fix even though it probably isn't, and then I'll sell the land and take all the profit for myself and not give you any. Being passionate about something happening is different from being passionate about the issue itself. If someone wants to get good grades to go to a good school, that doesn't mean they're passionate about doing their homework.
When you run a campaign to motivate people into doing something, regardless of if it's a good thing or not, to get them to do something for free, that's exploitation. If the people really cared about the lake, they would have cleaned it themselves. If the guy said in his initial presentation "This is a job I could be simply paying other people to do, I'm going to pretend to give a **** about this thing and make it seem really important, so you think it's important enough to fix even though it probably isn't, and then I'll sell the land and take all the profit for myself and not give you any. Being passionate about something happening is different from being passionate about the issue itself. If someone wants to get good grades to go to a good school, that doesn't mean they're passionate about doing their homework.
#68 to #67
-
demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-] He's not lying about anything. He's just not telling the people he owns the land - and I don't think that matters at all. He wants his land clean, that's the important thing, and so he's getting it done. He's not making the people believe anything they wouldn't otherwise believe. He's not saying he doesn't own the land. And even though he's not paying the people, they're still getting a more important reward than cash. Feelings. All cash does is give people a way to go get good feelings - he's just giving them the good feelings. Is it such a bad thing that it happens to benefit him as well? I don't think so.
#69 to #68
-
nightmaren (04/28/2015) [-] Because that's literally not the point of the comic. I can promise you that the author did not intend for that to be representative of him at all. As I've already stated, this comic is clearly about how the rich exploit the poor; you're not meant to assume that all he wants is to make people happy. And I would think that if he did, he would also have some kind of sense of fairness, and would at least donate something to the community, or give the organizers some money.
It's honestly not debatable that he used and exploited people for his own profit; as he could have just hired and payed people to clean the land for him, which would still have been a good thing, similar to "letting people feel good about it". It would have had the same result, and some people would have gotten money, which goes a lot farther than feeling good about yourself. He motivated the people to do it so he wouldn't have to pay anybody. End of the story. Just because good things happened because of it doesn't excuse the fact that he manipulated a group of people for his own selfish profit.
It's honestly not debatable that he used and exploited people for his own profit; as he could have just hired and payed people to clean the land for him, which would still have been a good thing, similar to "letting people feel good about it". It would have had the same result, and some people would have gotten money, which goes a lot farther than feeling good about yourself. He motivated the people to do it so he wouldn't have to pay anybody. End of the story. Just because good things happened because of it doesn't excuse the fact that he manipulated a group of people for his own selfish profit.
#70 to #69
-
demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-] So to you, it's unfair for him to try and save money? It's evil for him to not spend money he doesn't have to? Because he didn't do anything wrong, despite you wanting to try and find some way of twisting him being smart into being bad. The same as the artist, who really just didn't think it through.
Paying people = using people
getting people to do things without paying them = smart, not evil
not spending money you don't have to = smart, not evil
not working had when you don't have to = smart, not evil
And he's helping the community, because that park is a part of the environment.
If he wasn't wearing a suit, would you still label him as evil?
Paying people = using people
getting people to do things without paying them = smart, not evil
not spending money you don't have to = smart, not evil
not working had when you don't have to = smart, not evil
And he's helping the community, because that park is a part of the environment.
If he wasn't wearing a suit, would you still label him as evil?
#95 to #70
-
nightmaren (04/29/2015) [-] I'm not trying to twist things to make it look like he did something wrong. I'm saying he did something wrong. It's pretty widely agreed upon that exploiting people = bad.
I don't know what makes you think that paying someone to do something is using them, that's pretty stupid. Paying people to do things for you is only 'using them' in a literal sense. When you pay someone to do something they know what they're doing, and they know why you want them to do it. When you trick people into doing something because you don't want to pay someone to do it, or you don't want to do it yourself, and your cards aren't all on the table, and youu don't give any money back to the people who helped clean it: you are exploiting them. It's not even up for debate.
It is a smart move though, and I do admire what he did, the same way I admire Petyr Baelish. Petyr's one of my favourite characters, but that doesn't mean he's not a dick.
Again, we shouldn't admire the guy in this comic for "helping the community" because he didn't set out to improve the community; he set out to use people for his personal gain. To help explain this to you, I've revised your chart.
Paying people = Giving people money to complete a task they set out to do. Helps them put food on the table and pay their bills. Helps the economy. You said early that giving people "good feelings" is worth more than money. That's not even mildly true.
getting people to do things without paying them = Smart, although it doesn't help the economy, it doesn't help feed anybody, it doesn't help pay anybody's bills. Is only morally okay if the people you're getting to do the things know why you're doing it and all your cards are on the table and they agree to it.
not spending money you don't have to = Is a bad thing to do when you trick people into doing things for you when you could be paying people who specialize in it to do it for you
not working had when you don't have to = Is a bad thing to do when you trick people into doing things for you when you could be paying people who specialize in it to do it for you
I don't know what makes you think that paying someone to do something is using them, that's pretty stupid. Paying people to do things for you is only 'using them' in a literal sense. When you pay someone to do something they know what they're doing, and they know why you want them to do it. When you trick people into doing something because you don't want to pay someone to do it, or you don't want to do it yourself, and your cards aren't all on the table, and youu don't give any money back to the people who helped clean it: you are exploiting them. It's not even up for debate.
It is a smart move though, and I do admire what he did, the same way I admire Petyr Baelish. Petyr's one of my favourite characters, but that doesn't mean he's not a dick.
Again, we shouldn't admire the guy in this comic for "helping the community" because he didn't set out to improve the community; he set out to use people for his personal gain. To help explain this to you, I've revised your chart.
Paying people = Giving people money to complete a task they set out to do. Helps them put food on the table and pay their bills. Helps the economy. You said early that giving people "good feelings" is worth more than money. That's not even mildly true.
getting people to do things without paying them = Smart, although it doesn't help the economy, it doesn't help feed anybody, it doesn't help pay anybody's bills. Is only morally okay if the people you're getting to do the things know why you're doing it and all your cards are on the table and they agree to it.
not spending money you don't have to = Is a bad thing to do when you trick people into doing things for you when you could be paying people who specialize in it to do it for you
not working had when you don't have to = Is a bad thing to do when you trick people into doing things for you when you could be paying people who specialize in it to do it for you
#54 to #38
-
anon (04/28/2015) [-]
The implication is that he didn't actually care about cleaning it, only about selling it.
So it's definitely a moral gray area. He lied and used people for his own profit, but inadvertently also did something good.
So basically, he set out to do something wrong and only accidentally did a good deed in the process. It's an old moral quandary--who is actually a good person, the saint who kills a man by accident or the asshole who saves a man by accident?
So it's definitely a moral gray area. He lied and used people for his own profit, but inadvertently also did something good.
So basically, he set out to do something wrong and only accidentally did a good deed in the process. It's an old moral quandary--who is actually a good person, the saint who kills a man by accident or the asshole who saves a man by accident?
#55 to #54
-
demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-] Did he set out to do anything wrong? He used his resources to get **** done that he needed done. He didn't hurt or trick anyone into doing it.
#25
-
oubliette (04/28/2015) [-] i dont really see anything wrong with this
guy saw something wrong
through his own charisma and hours giving speeches got people to fix it
then sold it for profit.
Is it the fact that he "used" people to clean it? Its hard being a public speaker especially one that aims to call others into action
i'd say through that effort, he earned the right to profit off of the lake that he alone decided to save
guy saw something wrong
through his own charisma and hours giving speeches got people to fix it
then sold it for profit.
Is it the fact that he "used" people to clean it? Its hard being a public speaker especially one that aims to call others into action
i'd say through that effort, he earned the right to profit off of the lake that he alone decided to save
#17
-
ubercookieboy ONLINE (04/27/2015) [-] Getting other people to fix up **** for their own benefit and making a profit off of it.#
Now THAT is being a good businessman
Now THAT is being a good businessman
#11
-
anomsssssss (04/27/2015) [-] now imagine the first picture as gaben looking down at the lake (the lake being an old outdated game), he goes to the town(internet) and ask for modders to come fix the game....
you know the rest
you know the rest
