Lucem Ferre

No, because Frown is typically a fair and trustworthy moderator. His personality isn't much of a factor and he shouldn't have to hinder it for the sake of a facade.

__________________

Art Is Dead. Buy My ****.

Chula Vista

Are you serious? Facade? Please explain.

He comes at me all the time. Using his bias as an excuse.

Frownland deflects and insults Chula for his opinions, again in 5... 4... 3....

I'm tired.

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

Frownland

Go take a nap. I really don't give a **** dude.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Lucem Ferre

You're saying he should censor his thoughts because it makes him look like he's unworthy of being a mod even though his track record as a mod has been fair.

His opinions, condescension and insults, which most people on here do including you, have nothing to do with his modding ability. It only makes it look like he's a terrible mod when he's not.

I mean, unless there is some kind of incident I don't know about.

__________________

Art Is Dead. Buy My ****.

Lucem Ferre

I have the same problem too sometimes.

__________________

Art Is Dead. Buy My ****.

DwnWthVwls

I leave and he finds someone new to bicker with? Slut.

__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

Chula Vista

DWV, I come at you very rarely. Can only think of maybe a few times. Frowny is a constant target - dude just loves picking at my scabs and it really pisses me off.

I'll take slut as a compliment at this time of the day (almost 11:00 PST).

In other news:

Making America Great Again!

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

Isbjørn

Agreed.

Anyway, since someone brought up "the leechers", let's just suppose that "leeches" are, indeed, a signifigant problem that's worth solving. Cutting in welfare all across the board to "incentivize" people to find work is a typical neoliberal solution that negatively impacts everyone, so let's just dismiss it out of irrelevance. Here we're talking about ways to find and deal with the "leeches", specifically. If that even is to be possible, a couple of questions appear that need answering:

Who are to decide who "leeches" and who doesn't? Follow-up question, how do we prevent this from becoming a bureaucratic and costly nightmare?

What do we do if people are incorrectly classified as freeloaders? Taking away someone's benefits when they actually need them borders on violence. We need to prevent situations where people who genuinely need benefits lose them due to bureaucratic mismanagement. There are already many instances of this happening - people being deemed "fit to work" when they actually have chronic diseases that keep them from working, and who need public money to afford medicine/implants/protheses etc.

Considering these things, is targeting "leeches" even worth the effort? I don't think so. Being a welfare recipient is already a very undesirable scenario, and signing up for benefits is a bureaucratic and discouraging process in most places. Furthermore, most places require unemployed welfare recipients to actively look for work (in Norway, you're not even registered as "unemployed" until you sign up at the Labour and Welfare Administration and agree to look for work. You have to agree to accept just about any job offer you get). If anything, we should be looking for solutions that make welfare less bureaucratic and less demotivating. Some people have proposed implementing a universal basic income (subsistence wage) that one receives regardless of their work situation. If you want people to get employed, fund job training and reeducation programs. Publicly invest in infrastructure - this will boost the economy and create jobs for many people who are unemployed but fit to work. And so on. These are totally realistic and feasible solutions, even for people who aren't anti-establishment.

Socialists (here represented by Elphenor and me) would argue that unemployment is a natural occurence under capitalism that serves to keep down wages and create competition between workers for the jobs. To permanently fix unemployment issues, we need a planned economy that takes care of the interests of the collective rather than the interests of corporations. By allowing workers influence over their workplace and democratic input on the economy as a whole, people will see work as more than just a means of subsistence, but work to better themselves and their community. But that's another discussion.

__________________

Isbjørn

Yeah, it was campaigning lie by Ronald Reagan that has just stuck around. Not the only time a president fabricates ridiculous stories to legitimize their equally ridiculous policies

__________________

Isbjørn

The anti-war movement should step up against US aggression towards North Korea like it has done before. The last time the US actually bombed North Korea, a third of their population died. All their cities were levelled. The Koreans have not forgotten that, and this makes US aggression towards them frightening to say the least. Bombing the Koreans would be a mindless decision and an act of evil.

I must admit that for a while I believed that Donald Trump had the potential to be a candidate for peace, who would seek friendly relations with Russia and bring a temporary halt to US interventionism. Now I'm just hoping for as little human suffering as possible and that a third world war doesn't break out in the next couple of years.

__________________