How big is Academic Agent's subjective value of butthurt right now?
He's still doing damage control
Other urls found in this thread:
But I thought capitalism was when you're standed on an island and trade fish for coconuts?
holy kek this is pathetic.
Will there be any crying?
Angstreich and his friends have been mercilessly bullying him since.
38 FUCKING CONDITIONS
>THIS IS WHAT RIGHT WINGERS CONSIDER INTELLIGENT
I find this guy more pathetic than Sargon and that's saying a lot.
The excess supply of impotence is about to cause a crisis of overproduction lads
not only is this list ridiculous it would be basically impossible to enforce most of these during a debate
so much for the alpha right
i've never seen anything more pathetic
That's actually hilarious.
Condition 36: You will not talk, only listen.
Desperate, futile, weak.
I doubt he himself could keep within this battlefield he himself has drawn borders to. He will without doubt refer to breaches of these rules of his time and time again as some sort of pseudo-argument, as a desperate last-straw, whenever he feels driven into a corner.
All the time, constantly, that is.
He'll rely on the fallacy fallacy, but in the odd shape of strange rules and guidelines. Should it not be the moderator, not one of the participants who defines the principles? Perhaps in co-operation with the participants, but still?
FUCK YOU JACK. FUCK YOU. FUCK YOU. THIS ISN'T THE REAL WORLD.
So what happened, did Jack tell him to fuck off?
If he were to follow these acedemic agent couldnt argue anything. He does all these things all the time.
I don't get that last part
Pretty great archive of AA's spergout for the ages.
He's not an ancap anymore just so you know.
A fan donated $1 to Stefan Molyneux with a heartwarming message and he flipped.
I actually kind of feel badly for him. Yeah, he deserves it, but this is cringy.
it would be understandable if he was like 16. this is a grown ass man
I think we've all done something stupid in our lives and regretted looking stupid but this guy's solution is to keep doubling down into the hole he's in rather than putting it behind him so he's got nobody to blame but himself
AnCaps are comedy gold.
what is he now?
this man really is nuts.
What was his name again?
Scientific Soldier? Sceptic Supervisor?
Here's the original debate, btw: youtube.com
I can see my post up there
neoliberal fascist if I had to guess. but he made a video awhile ago denouncing libertarianism. all he really cares about is preserving private property even if that means the state is on steroids.
This guy should just delete his channel. This level of humiliation cannot be overcome.
lmao this fucking guy is unbelievable
But if he did that he would lose his nonexistent audience!
Is he still claiming he read Capital? Because that just gets more and more embarrassing.
How do you debate a retard though?
You don't, you just present your argument and then allow him to expose himself as a complete retard who can't meaningfully engage with anything you said.
p. much what happened
Academic "All Three Volumes" Agent
It did in part. The same economic crisis that struck the West in the 70s/80s struck the USSR as well. The West responded by financializing their economies. The Soviet Union couldn't come up with its own adaptation, and this contributed to other destabilizing factors also at play.
It wasn't the factor but was a factor.
The USSR did pretty well out of the crisis/depression/recession compared to everyone else. It was largely due to big time thots in the high command that killed it.
Okay, that's it, this isn't simple rectalragnarok. He has to have a mental illness of some sort.
What, you mean stagflation? How the hell could inflation be critical in the USSR of all places?
this guy isnt seriously involved in academia right?
i mean there is no way that any postmodernist cultural neo-marxist hegemon, no less powerful than evil, would allow him into academia right?
Oh my god, he bitched out after calling the other guy a coward? This guy has lolcow potential.
This makes sense superficially, but then… In the r e a l w o r l d, when people have a disagreement it is often up to s u b j e c t i v e judgment which premise is true, and even if two people disagree about a premise, they can come to an agreement, like this: Person A believes in X and not in Y, and thinks that Z does not logically follow from X, only from Y. Person B does not believe in X and instead believes in Y. Person B also believes that Z follows from either premise. Person B tells A that much, and while B fails to convince A that premise Y is true, B does succeed in convincing A that Z also logically follows from X. So, they come to an agreement that Z is the case even though they neither have in common belief in premise X nor premise Y. Another and much more simple reason for dropping Academic Agent's rule ten is just that distinguishing premises and the act of drawing conclusions makes it clearer to locate where disagreements lie.
I can see him following that rule -_-; Call me pedantic, but I think that list requires some work.
Production is circular in the r e a l w o r l d, an animal or plant is used in the reproduction of that same animal or plant. I'm afraid that AA will use the circular argument claim to mislabel realistic descriptions of production processes. I'm also afraid he will use this to mislabel descriptions of relationships between two components of a system that are more complicated than one entirely determining the other, a mutual dependence with some back and forth.
Too bad that you can't check on AA's credentials, because that would be doxing him. He read pretty much all of Marx and wrote three books about him, you better believe it, jerk! Take his word for it.
I have to say I don't see how rule 27 constitutes a logical fallacy of sorts. It sounds VERY INTERESTING when you read rule 24 and 27 together, eh?
Jesus, the guy is just too incompetent to pick up Capital and read Chapter 1, and pick one of the sticking points a standard marginalist would use against LTV. Of course I don't think AA is bright enough to actually articulate those arguments in a meaningful way and just needs to masturbate over the Austrian school. He can't even answer the simple question of the difference between the price of an airplane and a loaf of bread, just defaults to "durrr it's what people subjectively want".
How asspained is he?
If an analogy were perfect, it wouldn't be an analogy. You would be talking about the same thing.
Behold, the rational champions of free speech!
The Common-Sense Commisar
Will he debate anyone if they say they will agree to these terms. I would debate him and then never use the word "value" just exchange-power, utility and congealed labor.
This are by the way good guidelines, the only problem being that these kinds of monitored debates are good only among friends (for one almost always exactly knows what the other means). If you do it with strangers at some point you'll say "you're diverting to another question due to an irrelevant objection", the other will say something like "the objection is not irrelevant" and bam, they will now spend hours debating about debating.
Jack says at the end of this that he wants to debate Sargon :O
What? So you can just say words and not have to define any of them? You don't have to back up anything you say since you can just say "you misunderstood" forever?
No changing the meaning of a term, but you cant define the term either. What?
Basically "don't argue with me!". I would just make up words and use them in place for marxist terms.
He got triggered
Gee, I guess he just admitted his theory can't be empirically proven
BTW this guy blocked me for saying that dems are capitalists, the fucking moron.
Academic Agent wants to debate the subjective theory of how markets work, but doesn't seem to understand marginal utility either:
By value AA seems to mean price here. However, Marx did not claim that price ratios of products always correspond to the ratios of labour time committed to their production. To pretend Marx did that is to repeat the bogus mudpie argument.
And another thought on that subjectivist "theory": It seems utterly obvious that the price of an object has something to do with the satisfaction you get from obtaining that object. Consider two laptops that are basically identical models, except one has more storage and working memory built in. Nobody is surprised that the better model is more expensive. For objects that have similar uses and so are compared a lot, there is a correlation between how high the price of this or that object is and how the people buying it evaluate it, does this mean there is a clear causal relationship strictly running from feelings to prices? He seems to believe so.
Consider this: All that people have in common who are going to buy the same mass-produced thing that is sold at one price is that rather part with that amount of money to get the thing than keep the money and not get the thing. Whether that decision was a close call or the advantage felt was huge can be very different among different buyers of the same mass-produced thing. Now suppose the price of that thing goes up for whatever reason. People who think the thing is barely worth its old price will not buy it at the high price. People who considered the old price a steal are more likely to still be willing to buy, people who think it is the most amazing shit ever will swallow another price hike. So, when an item is very expensive of course you will find people with a high opinion about the quality of it among its customers. A high price filters out people who feel meh about it. So, you see you can arrive at this correlation of high prices and high opinion the other way around, too.
Labour is not stored in the item, I don't get where he got that.
Let's check: marxists.org
You are right. If for some good that doesn't quickly spoil the production technique changes while some of that stuff is still chilling on the shelves awaiting buyers, the Marx-Value(TM) of this earlier produced stuff that is still on the shelves changes as well. This description by Marx is at odds with Academic Agent's (alleged) reading of him.
Judging about what AA said about use value under fuedalism at the end of the debate and the comparison of the values of commodities at the beginning I think he actually did read maybe the first 20 pages of capital volume 1 but didn't undestand it at all.
This guy is just a source of endless amusement.
Doesn't the Marxist use of these words predate the libertarian ones?
Yes. But AA "read" Marx later, so it appears to him that Marxists are doing that trick.
Time is subjective.
So he wants to just exclude himself from his own debate?
Small update: empiricalemperor.blogspot.com
It's just sad at this point. I found it funny at first but god damn getting owned like that must have really broke his brain or something.
we must show up to give our comrade support. no doubt Illiterate Agent's lackies are gonna be there
he just keeps refusing to admit defeat and digs himself further and further into a hole, and Jack seems quite the persistent type
this will 100% be a shit show
Is it actually happening though? Did Jack say he was up for it?
we should make a new thread
aw fuck no please no I don't want to listen to another 4 hours of AA's autism but I know I'm gonna fucking do it anyway fuck fuck fuck
i guess this is masochism then
Is this guy even a libertarian? I just went through his tweets recent and all of them are about antifa, disappearing white children and how people are brainwashed into hating the USA.