I didn’t know Bernie was young.

DNC just hates leftists, age doesn’t really matter.

My only gripe with the new switch is the lack of ergonomics, which is also the issue with the current switch. But I don’t really care because chances are I’m unlikely to be using it in handheld mode with joycons. If I want to take the switch with me it comes along with a pro controller and I use the stand. I guess joycon quality is also relevant question mark.

But yeah, I’m also mostly interest in the software because Switch was pretty barebones. I’m definitely expecting more from Switch 2 (or whatever they’ll call it).

My biggest gripe is also the power level. Witcher 3 already sets her potential way above Geralt which means for Witcher 4 they most likely will nerf her powers to not make her a, living god. Personally I would’ve preferred if they hadn’t used Ciri in the first place because it’s bound to create retcons.

Or if they wanted to make a story about Ciri they should’ve focused on who she is (someone with elder blood) not on who she isn’t (an actual Witcher). She doesn’t need Witcher powers, her innate powers are already way stronger than what a Witcher gets.

She considers wealth redistribution as something that causes people to sacrifice their wealth. She also considers rational self-interest as something that can’t happen if others sacrificing anything. Thus voluntarily participating in an act of wealth redistribution, which getting social security is, contradicts rational self-interest because it’s causing others to sacrifice their wealth. Her doing that either means she’s a hypocrite who doesn’t actually believe in her own work, which you disagree with and defend (as evident from the very first comment you made), or her work is ideologically inconsistent, which you also disagree with and defend (the comments where you argue it’s in her self-interest because she’s paid into it).

It doesn’t matter to me which way you’re going to try to twist this, you’re going to end up defending her or her ideology because you’ve already done both of those things. I’m not going to continue arguing over those points because I’ve already established my surrender. You won the defense of Ayn Rand, hence the tag.

You don’t have to try so hard anymore, you’ve already defended her ideology. We’re done here, I’ve already tagged you as “defends Ayn Rand” so in the future I’d know who I’m talking to.

By deliberately ignoring the meaning given by the author of the term and instead making up your own definition that suits your argument? Such a crusader for correct meanings.

I can’t use her own words to show how she’s a hypocrite? My bad, I thought we were having a honest discussion. Go enjoy your successful defense of Ayn Rand and her ideology because I’m fucking done with you.

I didn’t mean Rand herself. I meant the other guy was taking too broad strokes when it comes to participation. If a socialist becomes a capital owner and someone says calls them out for not being a socialist you can’t be “well they have to participate in the capitalist system so the criticism is moot”. They have to participate only to the extent of what is effectively forced upon them, but it doesn’t mean they have to go and start exploiting others. Same with Rand. Yeah, she had to participate in the taxation part of the process. She didn’t have to participate in the getting benefits part but she still chose to participate.

And the entire argument here is over whether or not she’s a hypocrite for not practicing what she preached. I think in that sense we’re in agreement that she’s a hypocrite because even if she herself has no standard she still preached about a certain standard. I honestly don’t care if it’s her lack of standards or too high standards of whatever ideology is present in her works, I simply see a disconnect between what she’s said and what she’s done and to me that’s hypocrisy. The other person however is trying to hold her to her own standard by trying to argue her actions are consistent with the ideology she presented.

I’ll ask again, are you arguing that taking social security when you can is not in your self interest?

Yes. That is exactly what Ayn Rand is saying.

The system doesn’t go away if you don’t take it and you’ve already paid into it.

And? Paying into it shouldn’t change your ideological stance. Or is a vegan allowed to eat meat if they pay to eat at an all you can eat restaurant that serves meat? After all they’ve already paid for the meat.

She is still going to have pay into the system if she lives. Not her decision for it to exist or pay into it.

Yes, she is being forced to participate in the system the same way socialists are forced to participate in a capitalist system. Nobody is calling her a hypocrite for paying taxes.

The decision is to take the money or don’t. Which is the decision that is self interested?

According to Rand. A decision made with rational self-interest is a decision that can’t sacrifice others and any redistribution of income is a distribution of sacrifice. That means any action in the redistribution process is not compatible with rational self-interest, because the process itself is sacrificing others. She gets a free pass on paying taxes because that participation is forced upon her. She doesn’t get a free pass on taking out social security because now she chose to participate in a process that is sacrificing others. Rational self-interest doesn’t justify her decision because she is choosing to sacrifice others.

When one speaks of man’s right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. Such an assumption is a confession of their own belief that to injure, enslave, rob or murder others is in man’s self-interest—which he must selflessly renounce.

Acting in self interest is supposed to be without the sacrifice of others.

Observe that any social movement which begins by “redistributing” income, ends up by distributing sacrifices.

She views any kind of redistribution of wealth (including social security) as something that causes people to sacrifice something.

Her own words show that taking social security is not in line with acting in your self-interest because taking social security is sacrificing others.

I think you’re taking too broad strokes with participation. . A socialist MUST participate in a capitalist system as that’s the world around them. That does not make a socialist a hypocrite. However the socialist CAN participate in the capitalist system in a way that socialism ideologically considers exploitative (as a capital owner who exploits others). That makes a socialist a hypocrite.

As for Ayn Rand, she MUST participate in social security to the extent where she has to give a part of her wealth to social security programs. However she CAN, but doesn’t have to, use social security for get benefit. She ideologically opposed social security, but when the time came she chose to use the very thing she opposed. It’s textbook hypocrisy. If she wanted to be consistent with her ideology she shouldn’t have relied on social security.

We might still buy new stuff, because adding things to existing can be expensive (in terms time and effort). I just spent hours (and I’m not done) looking for PC parts to utilize my old CPU in a home server. If I didn’t have very specific hardware requirements I’d just chuck it in the bin and buy a pre-built mini PC. And for most people I’d imagine that’s the case. People don’t want to tinker, they just want things to work. Right to repair is very much right to tinker. It suits people like me, but it’s not going to matter to people like my wife, who would much rather buy a new laptop than make the current one not work at a snails pace.

Don’t get me wrong, right to repair is important and I 100% support it, but my point is that it’s only important to us. The average Joe will never care and will much rather buy a new thing than make the existing one like the new one.

I disagree. I stopped watching when Spike was scoped in on Vicious and didn’t kill him. Anime Spike would’ve never let Vicious go because this is how Spike reacted when someone mistook him for Vicious. You don’t get that pissed off unless you really hate someone with every fiber of your being. I had other issues with the live action as well but I’ve clearly wiped my memory of its existence. Only the Spike thing remains because it’s the reason I stopped watching.